Lords Sitting of 16 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 Leicester): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

Message from the Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

European Consumer Affairs Council
3.2 p.m.
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 whether they will make a statement on the matters discussed, and the progress made, at the meetings of the European Consumer Affairs Council held on 7th April and 10th June.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, on 10th June the Consumer Affairs Council continued progress made on 7th April and agreed a directive to harmonise legislation prohibiting novelty products which are made or packaged to appear like food or drink, and could be dangerous, especially to children. It also reached agreement in principle on a directive to provide common rules for toy safety throughout the Community.
Among other matters, the council also agreed resolutions responding to Commission reports on consumer access to justice, and on a possible general product safety obligation at Community level. The Commission will be undertaking further work on both subjects.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that information. Is it not correct that the council also discussed a Commission proposal for a child safety campaign? If that is correct, can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking in advance of the Commission's proposals to make their own contribution to the EC child safety campaign in 1988, and whether the Government will be discussing those proposals with the voluntary organisations to see what they can do together?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, any government should do all they reasonably can to reduce the number of accidents to children. The Government have made clear their readiness to participate in some form of child safety campaign provided that it is reasonably well thought through and properly targeted. I must confess that there are considerable doubts whether it is sensible to try to run a child safety campaign from Brussels when so much emphasis needs to be given to local initiatives and to direct contact, but we shall approach the discussions in Brussels constructively.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, as progress is now being made towards a completed internal market, does the Minister agree that it is absolutely essential to get at the earliest possible date a general product safety directive that is in line with our own legislation? What action will the United Kingdom Government take to make this a reality?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Government have already introduced a general safety requirement under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Therefore we support in principle the concept of a general safety duty. We have undertaken to approach the discussions with the Commission on this difficult and complex issue in a constructive way. We must see how much further we can take it, accepting the need for such a duty.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, if I may follow up that point, my understanding is that at the present rate of progress it would be at least two years before there was a real discussion on a directive. I am asking whether Her Majesty's Government can do anything to hurry it up other than just agreeing in principle.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the internal market has a target date of 1991 or 1992. We have already introduced a general safety requirement under the Consumer Protection Act of this year. It is important that we should proceed on a Europe-wide basis and we shall be taking the matter up with Brussels.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, can the Minister report any progress on the unit pricing directive which to my knowledge has been in the pipeline for the best part of 10 years?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, although the Government still have a reservation on the matter the council has now reached broad agreement on the general principles which should apply to unit pricing of prepackaged goods. I would expect the remaining points of difficulty to be resolved fairly quickly and this should enable proposals to be adopted by the end of this year.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister one further question. Is he aware—as I feel he probably is—that there was considerable anxiety among the consumer organisations and the relevant Select Committee of your Lordships' House about the ineffectiveness of the Consumer Consultative Committee? On 12th February the Government told me in an Answer in

1153
this House that they accepted that the present consultative conditions were not satisfactory. While appreciating the workload of the Minister, does he feel that during the recess he could look at this matter so that perhaps we might make progress on our return?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is the proper attitude of all consumer organisations to express anxiety about the state of the world. I shall certainly look at that matter during the recess and see what can be done.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, will my noble friend not take more robust action against those manufacturers of items that look like sweets but are anything but sweets? It appears that manufacturers have no concept of how easily children are led to put these things into their mouths.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the purpose of the directive was to harmonise legislation. I hope that we shall make progress.

Parliamentary Counsel Office: Staffing
3.7 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 steps they are taking to increase the strength of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead): My Lords, there are at present 24 legislative draftsmen on the office's strength, and additionally four on loan to the Law Commission. By the end of September, as a result of a recent recruitment exercise, the total number will have increased to 30.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comparatively reassuring reply. Does he recall, as I am sure he does vividly, the fact that during the previous Session literally hundreds of drafting amendments had to be introduced into legislation, often at a very late stage? Can he give an assurance that the further steps which he has now announced will prevent that process being repeated when the long legislative programme in the Queen's Speech ends up in this House?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's concern. The kind of amendments to which my noble friend is referring are the responsibility of the sponsoring government departments. That therefore means the Ministers, which means those who sit on the Front Benches in both Houses of Parliament. I am confident that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel will, as it has always done in the past, cope with the demands placed upon it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we warmly welcome the news that the number of counsel is to be
1154
increased to 30, and feel quite sure that this will improve the performance in the terms to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred. Will the noble Lord say further whether the post of Second Parliamentary Counsel is still vacant or whether it has been filled?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not briefed on that particular point. I shall have to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I feel sure he will appreciate that this is an important supervisory post which will assist to improve the department's performance.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the work of parliamentary counsel, the legislators and indeed the users of statutes is greatly increased by Ministers and their departments requiring too much detail to be written into statutes, much of which is purely administrative and some of which is unenforceable? Will he therefore also bear in mind that we have fewer parliamentary counsel now than we had 15 years ago when the problem was not quite so acute? Is he able to assure us that the increase in the number of parliamentary counsel will not lead to a further increase in the contents of each statute?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not know that I can give my noble friend the undertaking that he seeks. However I say to my noble friend that I think that both members of the Government and also parliamentary counsel have heard clearly what has been said in your Lordships' House about the need for as much simplicity as possible. I should add that I should not always ascribe the complexity of what we study in Bills to the language of the draftsmen but rather to the complexity of the subjects with which the Acts deal.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, do we really require extra parliamentary counsel when it seems that their main work will be involved in privatising British national assets?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, they are very important subjects, and they all need legislative drafting.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether any consideration has been given to placing the parliamentary counsel under the Lord Chancellor rather than the Prime Minister, who at least theoretically ought to have more time to attend to their problems?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Parliamentary Counsel's offices consolidation branch was of course transferred in 1965 on loan to the Law Commission. Under arrangements which have become firmly established the office now provides the commission with draftsmen normally on two years secondment for the drafting of law reform Bills and consolidation Bills, and responsibility for the commission rests with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I think that for the moment those seem to us to be the right arrangements.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would he care to comment on the reports that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has requested no fewer than 200 extra civil servants to assist in the preparation and drafting of the forthcoming Education Bill?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am relieved to say that I think that is rather another Question.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister able to give us a slightly more definite answer to the noble question put by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the application of Parkinson's Law? Can we be assured that the appointment of more parliamentary counsel will not simply lead to more legislation? The basic trouble is not merely the parliamentary counsel but the endless spate of ill-thought out legislation with which this and the other place are inundated.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, missed the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton at the beginning of his supplementary question that, as my noble friend said, there are fewer parliamentary counsel today than there were when my noble friend produced his distinguished report in 1975. In fact I am not certain whether that is the case but I take it, as I always do from my noble friend Lord Renton, as being true.
I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that the difficulty of this situation—and it is a serious one—is that the wastage rate in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel is high. I should not wish the House to think that my noble friend Lord Renton's recommendation was in some way disregarded. Since the Renton Report of 1975 no fewer than 21 parliamentary counsel have been recruited, but the trouble has been that there has been a wastage of 18. To come back to the beginning again, if it is the case that, despite these efforts, we have rather fewer parliamentary counsel than we had some years ago I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, need worry about the volume of legislation.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister agree, in view of the projected legislation, that even with 30 counsel there is scant hope of improvement in the quality of Bills when introduced; there is scant hope of avoiding that series of government amendments which have bedevilled so many of the Bills; and there is scant hope of easing the burdens of your Lordships' revisory role?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I would agree with my noble friend's concluding remark that the revising role of your Lordships' House will continue to have a heavy burden placed upon it, but I think we can take comfort from the fact that that means that your Lordships' House is absolutely necessary.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that if one has that kind of wastage rate—18 to 25—there must be something seriously wrong with the way in which one treats them?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that parliamentary counsel are treated certainly by junior
1156
members of the Government with considerable respect. The problem is that it is an onerous job.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that last year, after the Recess, there was a Bill dealt with in the spill-over Session—I cannot remember what it was—and the majority of amendments came from the Government? Does this not show quite clearly that they had not had time to consider that Bill properly? The same applies to most Bills going through our Chamber today.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I take what the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has said seriously, but this of course is a dereliction of duty so far as the Government are concerned and not neglect so far as parliamentary counsel are concerned.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend able to say whether the Government have investigated the reason for the disturbingly high rate of wastage about which he informed your Lordships a moment ago? If they have been into the question, what is the reason?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the reasons are different. There are six different reasons that have been ascribed to me ranging from retirement to some not being up to the required standard.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, would not another reason be that these very ingenious gentlemen can attract greater rewards in the private sector by pursuing professional practice?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is perfectly true, as my noble friend Lord Broxbourne says, that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel is operating in a competitive field. Obviously there is a certain amount of wastage from that point of view.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord reassure us that there is no intention of privatising the legislation in this case?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may say so, I think that that falls a little wide of the original Question.

Parliament: Lifetime
3.18 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: 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 the lifetime of a parliament should be extended to seven years, such legislation not to take effect until the expiry of the present parliament.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): No, my Lords.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, it is difficult to thank my noble friend for that lengthy reply, but I thank him anyway. Would the Government agree,

1157
with the present average lifetime of a parliament, that legislation—particularly controversial legislation — seldom has time to work its way through the system, and that a different Administration can, and often does, repeal such Acts enacted by its predecessor before as it were, giving the baby a chance to live? This, in turn, leads to a go-stop effect.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that some policies of course take longer to mature, but against this there is the overriding need for the Government to keep in touch with the feelings of the electorate, and I think that recently we showed that we were in touch.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that, contrary to the length of time advocated by the noble Viscount, the Government have in fact introduced a tendency towards four-year parliaments? Would they consider going a stage further and seeking fixed terms in order that we may avoid the damaging pre-election uncertainties that we had the last time?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the noble Lord would care to look back a little further, he will find that between the 1918 and 1987 general elections the average life of a parliament, excluding the war parliament of 1935 to 1945, was four and a quarter years.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that in contradistinction to the view held by his noble friend, the Levellers probably had it right in 1643 when they opted for annual parliaments? By and large, shorter parliaments are better.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that the 1 year and the 3 year parliaments did not prove to be successful.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, in suggesting the extension of a parliament to seven years, the noble Lord said that it should not apply to this parliament. Is there any likelihood that legislation will be introduced to shorten the life of this parliament?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, we have a lot of work to do in the next five years and we look forward to receiving the noble Lord's comments as legislation progresses.

Duty-Free Shop Sales
3.21 p.m.
Lord Beswick: 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 Governmment what economic advantage is gained by the Treasury by forgoing the collection of taxes and excise duties on certain goods sold at international airports.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no direct economic advantage accrues to the Treasury, but there are benefits to the United Kingdom economy as a whole including the important contribution of
1158
duty-free shops to the economies of airport and cross-Channel ferry operators and as a shop window for British goods.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is it not a fact that in earlier days the opportunity of exploiting the duty-free device was a convenient way of subsidising the development of what was a private enterprise? Is there not now a distinct difference when, in effect, the Treasury will be subsidising a private company?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no; to the best of my knowledge the Treasury will be subsidising private citizens.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while giving due weight to the observations of my noble friend Lord Beswick, will the noble Lord agree that since all indirect taxation is by nature regressive, any relief that can be granted is extremely welcome?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no, but I agree that any relief from taxation is certainly to be welcomed.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that if we wish to help private citizens it can be done in other shops and not necessarily in those at the airport? Is it not a fact that in this case the beneficiary is not the seller of the actual article but, to a large extent, the private company (as it will be) because of the rates that it can now charge?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am tempted to use one of the forms that I have been given, but I suppose that it will not do as an Answer. It is true that the revenue from duty-free shops at airports helps to carry the cost of airport facilities. If it were not there the cost would be higher and in the end the consumer would be worse off.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I should like to ask a final question. When considering this matter is any weight given to the safety factor? Is it not a fact that the encouragement of extra loading of inflammable liquid adds to the fire hazard?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have not seen the calculations but I should imagine that, as a proportion of the fuel on the aircraft, the bottles of whisky and vodka would not add much. However, I am sure that, as with all such matters, the storage of materials is taken into account in looking at the safety aspects of aircraft.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is not the expression "duty-free" a transgression of the Trade Descriptions Act? It is nothing like duty-free; it is only partly duty-free when one looks at the price of a bottle of whisky on sale at London Airport.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, technically it is free of duty but the cost may not show the full rebate.

Business
3.24 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the proposed merger of British Airways and British Caledonian Airways. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Caithness who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Prison Population.

Western Isles Islands Council (Vatersay Causeway) Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Bexley London Borough Council Bill
3.25 p.m.
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Business of the House
3.26 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the Summer Recess.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend give an undertaking that what is obviously necessary on this occasion will not easily be regarded as a precedent for future occasions? It is bad when even non-controversial legislation has to be rushed. We should not let this occasion pass without getting an undertaking from the Government with regard to the future.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I appreciate what my noble friend has said. The three Bills concerned are the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, the Finance Bill and the British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill. The first two Bills are money Bills which the House would not normally amend; the British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill is not a money Bill but, if I may venture to say so, it is wholly uncontroversial. None the less, I shall draw to the attention of my noble friend the Leader of the House, what my noble friend has said.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, would it not be wise to name the Bills instead of stating in broad terms all Bills to the end of the Session?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have just named them.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, but not on paper.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, no, not on the paper. Once again, I shall draw that point to the attention of my noble friend the Leader of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Channel Tunnel Bill
3.27 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 12 [Controls on board trains engaged on international services:]
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 13, line 43, leave out ("London or")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be remembered that at the Report stage of the Bill, following discussions at the Committee stage the Government agreed with your Lordships, that customs and immigration procedures on international trains should be part of the arrangements in the Bill. We were grateful for the Government's consideration of that matter. Those of us interested in making sure that long-distance trains to more distant parts of the country are effective and commercially viable were grateful for that concession.
However, the situation remains that although passengers boarding a train in Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow or Edinburgh will be able to travel straight through to Paris, Brussels, or wherever, and have their customs and immigration arrangements dealt with on the train, people coming from London will have to go to Waterloo and pass through what has been described as airport-type facilities. Those noble Lords who regularly pass through airport-type facilities will know that they cause considerable delay. Frequently one must arrive at an airport an hour or two before departure. 1 am not suggesting that there will be that degree of delay at Waterloo but, undoubtedly, to have to check in baggage and go through immigration control there will cause greater delays than simply by getting on the train.
As I understand it, the cost of building the facilities at Waterloo has been estimated at approximately £7 million. That figure will not be borne by the taxpayer but by British Rail; but I have the impression that British Rail is not too anxious to construct those facilities unless it has to. In any case, at the end of the day the cost will be borne by the travelling public.
Not to build those facilities will cause less interference to the environment at Waterloo, where local people are already somewhat upset by the degree of interference which is to be placed on their lives by an increase in the number of travelling public. We should not dismiss that consideration too lightly. In France and in Belgium, in Paris and in Brussels, one simply will not have to go through these immigration and Customs facilities. It will all be done on the trains. It is my contention that if it is good enough for Paris and Brussels it ought to be good enough for London.
The Select Committee did not pronounce on the subject of Waterloo. It said very strongly that there should be Customs and immigration facilities on long-distance trains from north of London, but it did

1161
not pronounce itself as being opposed to those facilities being at Waterloo.
Finally, if the Single European Act succeeds, as we hope it will, in reaching a position where the internal market is such that the internal Customs and internal immigration problems are overcome by 1992, there will be no need for those facilities on what is now a land frontier. In the past the argument has been that in this country we were different from the Continent because they all had land frontiers whereas we had only sea frontiers. But of course with the Channel Tunnel we shall now have a land frontier.
For that reason and for others, though those may be less important, I believe that we should take this last opportunity of trying to persuade the Government that it is not necessary to have this large and expensive facility at Waterloo—this facility which will certainly not facilitate the transport of passengers. It is on that basis that I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and consider with it Amendment No. 2.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot support the noble Lord in his amendment. Having moved an amendment in Committee leaving Waterloo in, and the Government proposing to leave Waterloo out at Report stage and giving very good reasons, my noble friend said he would keep this under review. But I do not think one can ask the Government at this stage to commit themselves to agree to this sort of thing.
A great deal of success was achieved in agreement on frontier controls as regards cross-country trains. The noble Lord at that time was also speaking for other departments, where this is an entirely new concept. There are different situations on the Continent. Although I believe it would be very nice for people to have the same facilities as when they are getting on at Paris or Brussels, it is not comparing like with like. Sadly, therefore, I think we must wait to see what happens in the next six years and not decide this afternoon.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, this is an amendment which frankly I should have liked to support and add my name to. My noble friend Lord Carmichael and I had some difficulty in so far as we withdrew our own amendment, which would have provided for this because the Government had moved and accepted a position of there being Customs and immigration facilities on trains north of London. But I noticed that when the Minister dealt with this on 13th July, at col. 877 of Hansard, he said:
"However, there is, of course, nothing in the new clause"—
that is the clause which the Government introduced—
"to prevent on-train controls being introduced for those services of British Rail (or the operator, whoever it is) and the appropriate government departments agree".
I wonder whether the Minister could give some assurance now that if British Rail should make such a request for all trains and not just those north of London, and if the appropriate government departments agree, there will be no opposition from the Treasury if such a request is made by British Rail. One has a feeling that even the government clause had to be fought for very hard against the Treasury
1162
interests. I hope the Government themselves would agree with the principle, if British Rail should make such a request, that there would be no opposition from the Treasury.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, with great regret, I do not feel able to support this amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has just said, all of us who sat on the Select Committee—indeed, the whole House—are deeply grateful that the Government have followed the recommendation that we made and have agreed that what we now call in shorthand "trains travelling to the north of London" will have this facility. I personally remain of the conviction that the bulk of travellers—70 per cent. seems to be the agreed proportion—who will be travelling to London from either Paris or Brussels will find it more convenient if airport-type facilities are available at the terminus rather than if they had to go through the business on the trains.
So far as concerns immigration, this is a problem which might be dealt with more comfortably on the train but I remain convinced that as you lose the facility of the red and green channels—which implies that everybody on the train will be passing through the red channel—there is going to be what I think we might call the embarrassment factor of selected passengers having their luggage brought down from the rack and inspected in front of everybody in the carriage. That could well mitigate against this being regarded as an advantage.
I am afraid I was lost completely by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that it would require a person to arrive at the terminal one hour or so in advance so that this might happen. It does not happen at airports for the reason that when one has to get there in advance; it is for the benefit of the carrier. However, we have won a great concession from the Government in this case. It is in the Bill that if the facility is thought to be wise it should be introduced in the future, so the legislation provides for that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it did not take long on Monday in this House for the euphoria of the Government's new clause in respect of on-train controls to be overtaken by the argument, "if it can be done for trains beyond London, why not for trains to Waterloo too?" That came as no surprise to the Government but I should make it clear at the outset that the Government did not limit what is now in Clause 12 to trains beyond London because that was the least they felt they could get away with. It was because the balance of advantage and disadvantage of imposing a duty on the Government is really very different in respect of the Waterloo services.
The Government accept that one of the important safeguards built into Clause 12 as it now is—that there is no duty to provide on-train controls where BR does not ask for them—also safeguards BR's position if the House were to adopt this amendment. If BR felt that too much revenue-earning space would be taken up by the necessary check-in facilities or if it did not wish to bear any charges the Government may eventually decide to impose in respect of the exercise of controls in this way, it could indeed simply not apply for on-train controls; and so its interests are well covered.

1163
However, it is the Government's interests in this that are not adequately catered for. The Government have a duty to use their financial resources and manpower efficiently and economically. HM Customs have estimated that approximately half as many Customs officers again would be required for on-train controls as for conventional static controls. For trains bound beyond London, already covered by Clause 12, as the House has heard, there is no commercially attractive alternative to carrying out controls on the train, but the viability of these services may well depend upon them. The Government are prepared to accept the increased calls upon their manpower and resources, and reserve their oposition in relation to the cost.
However, for trains to London the arguments are quite different. For a start, on British Rail's estimates there will be two or three times as many passengers using trains to London as using trains to more distant destinations. Therefore the scale of the potential call on the Government's resources is much greater.
Secondly, the need for on-train controls is not the same. All the trains arrive at the same station, so that a system of airport-type controls is a completely viable alternative. It undoubtedly represents the best use of the Government's resources and it does not cast any doubt on the viability of the service. Indeed, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, that it is far from obvious whether passengers bound for London would prefer on-train controls. It will not be popular if Customs and immigration officers question people in close proximity to their fellow passengers.
It will be still less popular for passengers to be taken away to interview rooms for questioning or to have to take their baggage there to be searched. However, that will be absolutely necessary if we are not to abandon our campaign against drugs and terrorism. The officials may arrive just as passengers are embarking on the final course of a meal in the restaurant car; compare that with a system of red and green channels where the great majority of passengers pass through the green channel without interruption.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned possible delays owing to exit checks but the only checks that passengers will have to go through on exit, apart from any security checks that obviously may need to be carried out before boarding, are passport checks. There are no Customs checks on ordinary travellers upon exit and even passport checks are now carried out upon exit on a selective basis, only a proportion of passengers being checked on exit at airports.
The Government have concluded therefore that any perceived need for on-train controls does not, in the case of trains bound to or from London, justify a prior commitment to undertake the heavy burden that such a system of checks would place upon the resources" of HM Customs and Excise and immigration. But I emphasise, as I did when I introduced this clause, that there is nothing in the clause to prevent on-train controls on the Waterloo trains if British Rail and the government departments concerned agree.
I cannot go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would like me to go and say that there
1164
would be no opposition from the Treasury on this matter for the reasons that I put forward in my speech, but I hope that with the explanation that I have given, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will not press his amendment this afternoon.
Lord Galpern: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware of a news bulletin from Kent Radio this morning which said that Customs officers have voted not to agree to travel aboard Channel Tunnel trains because they do not consider that the system is safe? Does he have any comment to make on that statement?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have not heard that announcement. I only hope that during the course of the next six years we shall be able to sort out that question.
Lord Tordoff: Indeed, my Lords, I wonder whether that kind of attitude does not lie behind some of the difficulties that we have already had. I am not trying to detract from the fact that the Government changed their mind between the Committee and Report stages and were good enough to say so. That is something that takes a certain amount of courage on the part of any government and we are grateful for it.
Perhaps I may deal with one or two of the points raised in this short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said that this system was a new concept. It is not a new concept at all but one that has existed for many years on the Continent. Paris and Brussels are indeed no different from London when it coins to such a decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has rightly noted what the Minister said at Report stage, and he has made the same statement just now; namely, that there is nothing in the Act to stop on-train Customs from Waterloo if that is desired later. The only hurdle that will be there to stop it will be an investment of £7 million into the equipment that has been installed in order to have airport-type facilities. That investment will not lightly be thrown away. All I am suggesting is that we should look forward somewhat and before that amount of money is invested we should take the decision now to put customs and immigration on to trains from Waterloo.
The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, is deeply grateful to the Government. That comes as no surprise. However, I must refute the notion that 70 per cent. of people will find the system more convenient and that it will be for the benefit of the carrier. There is bound to be some delay in passing through airport-type Customs. It may not be an hour, as I said in my opening remarks, but the process is bound to take some time. I n order to catch a train, one will have to arrive at the station some while before the normal departure time so as to go through Customs and to queue up at immigration control. The procedure may take only half an hour but it will make a difference to the time that people arrive as well as to the number of people who will be milling around Waterloo waiting to board trains.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is very frank when he says that the real reason behind this move is the question of the best use of government resources. I understand that and also that the Treasury would not be very pleased to find the money to make that

1165
desired change. However, the cost is now being put back on to the travelling public who will have to pay directly instead of through taxes.
It seems to me that it is turning back the clock to suggest that it is not popular to go off to interview rooms and that we have to consider those sad people who are disturbed during their dinner in the restaurant car. After all it has been happening on the Continent. I know that they are all foreign over there but the system seems to work.
I was interested to hear what the Minister said on the subject of exit checks but I have to remind him that I did not mention them. I am sure that that point was put into his brief by a cautious gentleman somewhere in a box, but I do not remember referring to exit checks.
It seems to me that we now have an opportunity to get the situation straight from the start and that we ought to keep the travelling public in mind. This is the last chance that the House will have to make up its mind and therefore I intend to press the amendment.
3.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 128.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Airedale, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Amherst, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Banks, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Beswick, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Blease, L.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mais, L.

Brockway, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Merrivale, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Molloy, L.

Denington, B.

Mulley, L.

Diamond, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridgc, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ezra, L.

Rugby, L.

Fitt, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Fletcher, L.

Seear, B.

Foot, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Gladwyn, L.

TordofT, L. [Teller.]

Granville of Eye, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gregson, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hampton, L.

Willis, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Ypres, E.

Jeger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Butterworth, L.

Arran, E.

Caithness, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Auckland, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carnock, L.

Beloff, L.

Cathcart, E.

Belstead, L.

Craigavon, V.

Bessborough, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Borthwick, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

De Freyne, L.

Braye, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

1166

Dundee, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Effingham, E.

Moyne, L.

Elibank, L.

Munster, E.

Elliot of Hanvood, B.

Newall, L.

Foley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fortescue, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Gainford, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Onslow, E.

Glanusk, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Fender, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Porritt, L.

Gridley, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hankey, L.

Reay, L.

Havers, L.

Reigate, L.

Hayter, L.

Renton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Renwick, L.

Hives, L.

Rodney, L.

Holderness, L.

Romney, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hooper, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandford, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sandys, L.

Inglewood, L.

Selkirk, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Kimball, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Knutsford, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Slim, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Layton, L.

Strange, B.

Long, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Lothian, M.

Sudeley, L.

Luke, L.

Teviot, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trafford, L.

Margadale, L.

Tranmire, L.

Marley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Marsh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Ullswater, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Vinson, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Mersey, V.

Windlesham, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wise, L.

Morris, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Mountevans, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]

BA-BCal:Proposed Merger
3.54
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat the Answer which has been given to a Private Notice Question in another place. It is as follows:
"None. The offer was announced only this morning. The Director General of Fair Trading will advise my right honourable and noble friend the Secretary of State on the question of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as soon as reasonably practicable".
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for repeating an Answer made by his colleague in another place to a Question which perhaps should have been addressed to him. We accept that there are certain procedures which have to be gone through before the Secretary of State can make up his mind whether to refer this merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Nevertheless, even at this stage, I should like to ask the noble Lord a series of questions.

1167
Was there contact between the director general and the two companies in question during the course of the negotiations leading up to the announcement which was made? As your Lordships will know, it is quite common when major transactions—and this, by any standard is a major transaction—are envisaged that informal approaches are made to the Office of Fair Trading to try to elicit a view as to what the likely reaction of the director general, advised by the Merger Panel, might be, and the director general has in a number of cases informally given advice. Was such advice sought and was it given?
Secondly, is it the intention that the proposed merger be made conditional on non-referral or do the two companies accept that a referral is almost certain? I would refer in that instance to the case where United Newspapers proposed an acquisition where under the Fair Trading Act, as the noble Lord explained to us the other day, it is quite normal for the Secretary of State to take a decision to refer; and it said, "We wish to make this acquisition. We accept that there may be a referral. When there is a referral we will debate it in front of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and then we will come back and set the terms". Was this proposed merger a case of that sort or was it a case where the merger was proposed on the basis that it will not go forward if there is a referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
Thirdly, would the Government accept even now that this is something of an exceptional merger; that it involves a reversal of government policy of trying to promote a second force British airline, with I think a Scottish flavour, when British Airways was in public ownership and there was a substantial discussion about allocation of routes between British Caledonian and British Airways which led to a certain amount of rather acrimonious discussion between the two companies but was justified by the Government on the basis of increased competition? Is this policy now reversed?
Fourthly, whatever the director general says, we must accept that it is the Secretary of State's decision at the end of the day whether to make a referral of this proposed merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Does the noble Lord accept that such a referral would be an excellent opportunity for an independent general review of the public interest and of the extent to which the international climate, which I understand is the justification for the proposed operation, has changed since the Government's policy of promoting a second force British airline? Finally, would the Secretary of State accept that if there is no referral, then we on this side cannot but believe that the present competition policy has largely broken down?
4 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I in my ignorance had thought that we would be told what the Private Notice Question that had been asked was, instead of which we only got the answer. But I should like to ask the Minister—I am probably echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has just said—whether this matter came as a complete surprise to the Director General of Fair Trading, as
1168
it did to everyone else, or whether he was aware that this was about to be referred to him for a decision.
I should also like to know about another important matter. When do the Government expect a decision from the Director General of Fair Trading? If that decision is made when Parliament is in recess do the Government propose that the way in which they receive the recommendation from the director general will not be decided until Parliament has had an opportunity of discussing the matter? I ask that because these decisions are so often made when the House has either just gone into recess or when it is in recess and it is obvious to everybody that there should be a full discussion on the matter.
The next point that I wish to put to the Secretary of State is that obviously, whatever the decision, such a merger would have very grave repercussions on industry both internationally and in Europe and in this country. What would the Government's reaction be to the policy on competition which they support if we do have the merger of two such very large organisations?
My last question is: is the Director General of Fair Trading going to propose to the Government either that the merger be accepted or that the merger be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? I am quite convinced that we on these Benches would wish such a proposed merger to be referred.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. As regards the parties to the merger and the Director General of Fair Trading, advice may or may not have been given and contact may or may not have been made between the parties. Those matters remain confidential between the Director General of Fair Trading and the parties to the merger and I am afraid that I am not in a position to know what has happened. The noble Lord asked whether referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would be a condition upon which the offer would be withdrawn. My understanding is that that is a condition which is imposed by the Takeover Panel and is a normal condition in this kind of matter.
As regards the whole question of airline policy and what I might or might not do in those circumstances, I am in a quasi-judicial position. The strict position is that I wait to hear from the director general and he will advise me on whether or not a merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If he advises me to do that I shall then consider whether I should or should not do so at that time. These matters must follow an orderly progression.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. I am sure that the director general will as usual advise me as expeditiously as possible. However, all in your Lordships' House would agree that this is not an easy matter. There are complex issues at stake and therefore the director general will have to take a reasonable amount of time to come to a decision. Whatever happens, we can only assume that he will make his decision some time after the House rises because that is only a matter of some 10 days' time. I shall have to see what happens at that time. I cannot possibly give an undertaking that this whole matter can wait until October, until your Lordships' House

1169
returns. These are commercial matters and great issues are at stake. I shall have to wait to see what the director general says.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I wish to clarify one point with the Secretary of State. He said that it was a requirement of the Takeover Panel that the merger should lapse if there were a referral. I believe I am right in saying that it is a requirement of the Takeover Panel that the particular terms of the offer should lapse but not the intention to merge. That is the point I was getting at.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am as ever grateful for the noble Lord's greater knowledge of the minutiae of takeover law.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I wish to express a note of sadness that British Caledonian should have come to this. How does the Civil Aviation Authority come into this matter? It has allocated routes to British Caledonian on the basis of competition with other companies. That competition will now go. What then happens to the route allocation?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the effect of the merger on the airline competition policy and on routes is really a matter which is more properly the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. That is a matter which would normally fall to him and I am sure it is one that he will consider should that come to pass.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I am sure he is—that if the merger takes effect it will involve a complete reversal of the civil aviation policy which has been pursued by successive governments at any rate since 1971? Is he aware therefore that there is a great deal more to this issue than even the important matters that concern the Director General of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
Is my noble friend also aware of the fact that has already been mentioned that the Civil Aviation Authority has for years carefully allocated routes to one or other of these airlines with a view to maintaining, in accordance with government policy, two large and viable international airlines in this country? Whatever the outcome of this particular referral, will my noble friend ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement to this House at the earliest possible moment as to the changes which the Government intend to make in the civil aviation policy which has been pursued for years by their predecessors?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend but I hope that all in your Lordships' House will appreciate that we are dealing now with two private sector companies which only this morning have decided on a particular course of action. There is a procedure to follow. As a result of that procedure this merger may or may not take place. If it does take place that may or may not have an effect on aviation policy. There is a whole series of matters involved, some of which are more properly dealt with by me. I must correct an incorrect answer which I inadvertently gave earlier. The matter of
1170
routes is of course very much a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority but many other matters are the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
We should look at all these matters in an orderly manner. The first thing that will happen is that the Director General of Fair Trading will report to me. At that stage I may or may not refer the merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. All parties will have a very good opportunity then to give evidence to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. When we see the result of that and the outcome, if it should come to that, and the outcome of all those procedures we can then look upon the effect, if any, upon airline policy. But I suggest that we look upon this in an orderly manner.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord will want to answer my question. Does he agree that competition in this particular area is international rather than national? Does he agree that these are two independent commercial private companies, that the merger would appear to many outside observers to make commercial sense and that it is certainly good for the British airline industry?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that may or may not be so. At the moment I should rather wait to hear from the Director General of Fair Trading. If I can, I shall keep my powder very dry.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there could well be some concern about the verification documents that have been issued with the British Airports Authority's new share issue if the shaky state of British Caledonian's finances were known, particularly in view of the fact that it represents a major part of the prosperity of Gatwick Airport?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is an entirely different matter but I should have thought that the amount of traffic going through Gatwick would not be affected by what happens now. We shall just have to see.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if the noble Lord decides not to refer this matter will that enable him to make a statement to this House before we rise?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not anticipate that the Director General of Fair Trading will be in a position to report to me until after the House rises. It is only then that I can begin to consider the position.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in reply to an earlier question the noble Lord suggested that the matter of Gatwick may not have total relevance today. However, we on these Benches would suggest that the future of Gatwick is important because that is the main base of British Caledonian and any change in ownership of it could shift the balance of usage between Heathrow and Gatwick quite drastically.
While I understand that it is difficult for the noble Lord to respond specifically to these questions today, will he please convey to his right honourable friend the worry which is felt on all sides of the House about

1171
these matters of civil aviation policy? It cannot be simply a matter of two companies merging; it goes far beyond that. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, it goes to the whole question of civil aviation policy throughout the country.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, yes.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I made two points with which the Minister did not deal: first, competition and the likely effect of this merger, and, secondly, the international repercussions. I also asked him whether the Government would refrain from taking a decision until the House had had an opportunity to debate the matter. Reverting to what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, can the Minister give us a definite assurance that if it was proposed to alter the arrangements under which air transport has been working in this country through the CAA, at least that would not be done until the matter had been debated in Parliament?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am in a difficult position in this matter. I ask all in your Lordships' House to bear with me.
It would not be right or proper for me to comment on particular matters. I must wait to hear the report of the director general and then make up my mind at that time. I am in a quasi-judicial position in this. It may well be that in the fullness of time there will be an opportunity to debate the matter, should one course of action pertain, should another course of action pertain there may not be.
I cannot give an undertaking. This is a commercial matter and there are other procedures. I should very much prefer there to be an opportunity to debate it, but it may be that as a result of events the matter will be out of my hands.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the convenience and choice of passengers will be affected by the merger? I am a regular traveller on British Caledonian. I prefer to go via Gatwick, and there is the convenience offered to passengers by the train service between Victoria and Gatwick.
Lord Young of Graffham: I am quite certain that the Director General of Fair Trading or, should it come to that, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, would take all these points into account. I very much doubt—I have no means of knowing at present—whether it would affect the use of Gatwick and/or Heathrow. These are matters that have to be looked into by other people before they come to me.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in the light of comments made on all sides of the House, will not the Secretary of State recognise that the timetable is set by him and the director general can report to him in the fullness of time or tomorrow, as the case may be? It would be no problem for the Secretary of State to announce now—he can correct me if I am wrong—under the Fair Trading Act that, whatever the recommendation of the Director General of Fair Trading may be, he, the Secretary of State, intends to refer this to the Monopolies and Mergers
1172
Commission. That will allow a proper debate on the issues at the right time.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I cannot give such an undertaking. The director general must look at the position. It is a very complex matter. I shall be relying upon his advice. As soon as I receive it, I shall then decide.

Channel Tunnel Bill
4.15 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 17 [Supervision by Intergovernmental Commission and Safety Authority]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 19, line 12, at end insert ("in Scotland except by or with the consent of the Procurator Fiscal or")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister may recall that I raised this in the dying days of the Report stage. The Minister in his reply said that Scotland was covered by subsection (10), which on the face of the Bill refers only to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I tabled the amendment to give the Minister time to make sure that his words were correct.
I still have grave doubts. I have taken some advice. I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up the matter and that he has taken legal advice. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having raised the matter. We have in the interim taken advice from the Scottish law officers.
I should first own up to an inaccuracy in my description of the effects of Scots law during the Report stage on Monday. I have to say that the Government still believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
Prosecutions in Scotland are of course normally brought by the Procurator Fiscal in lower courts and the Lord Advocate in higher courts. There are, however, very limited circumstances in which a private prosecution could be brought in Scotland. Whereas elsewhere in the United Kingdom in the absence of specific legislation the right of private prosecution is virtually unconstrained, this is not the case in Scotland. The Scots law already provides a thorough system of checks against vexatious proceedings. It is not therefore necessary or appropriate to make special provision in the Bill as it is for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
On the basis of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. However, I shall once more draw what he has said to the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I note that the Minister said this was neither necessary nor appropriate. As to its inappropriateness I wonder whether he would look at it again. That is one of the points on which the meaning of the amendment hinges.

1173
If the Minister has consulted the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, as I am sure he has, and this has been looked at carefully, I am in no position to proceed with the amendment.
I still have a very uneasy feeling. I know that private prosecutions happen rather more often than the Minister seems aware. We have had some very important ones quite recently. Given the Minister's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Intergovernmental Commission and Safety Authority: Supplementary]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 19, line 23, leave out ("or direction") and insert (", direction or certificate").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4 and I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 to 13 inclusive.
In proposing the amendment I am honouring an undertaking that I gave on Report to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. To use her own word, she was "shattered" on that occasion by my telling your Lordships that the Government accepted the principle of her amendment, which provided that Eurotunnel should adopt a code of practice relating to the transport of persons who are disabled. I explained—I think that the noble Baroness accepted this— that certain drafting changes were needed. These have now been made, and the amendments now before your Lordships achieve the objective.
The amendments provide that Eurotunnel must adopt a published code of practice on transport by their shuttle trains of people who are disabled. They may if necessary exclude certain categories of disabled people but, if so, they must explain why. This is intended simply for those categories of people whose needs in terms of facilities or equipment are so complex that the concessionaires could not reasonably be expected to carry them on shuttle trains. They must give details of how they will ensure the safety of disabled persons in the tunnel system. This code of practice will be considered by the Intergovernmental Commission, and only when it is satisfied will it issue a certificate allowing Eurotunnel to carry passengers.
If Eurotunnel has not made satisfactory arrangements for carrying passengers with disabilities, it will not be allowed to carry passengers on its shuttles at all. I do not think that your Lordships could ask for more. I beg to move.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, we come back to this question for the third time. Both I and those helping me to prepare the case appreciate very much the Minister's gesture. We are satisfied with the amendment that he has offered in place of mine, which was wrongly drafted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 13:
Page 19, line 29, after ("direction") insert (", certificate").
Page 19, line 37, after ("direction") insert ("or certificate").
Page 19, line 40, after ("direction") insert ("or certificate").
Page 19, line 41, leave out ("certificate") and insert ("statement").
Page 19, line 43, leave out ("stating").
Page 19, line 43, after ("direction") insert ("or certificate").
Page 19, line 44, at end insert ("or certificate").
Page 19, line 45, leave out ("certificate") and insert ("statement").
Clause 19 [Operation by the Concessionaires]:
Page 20, line 11, at end insert—
("(4) The Concessionaires shall not convey any passengers by means of shuttle trains at any time when there is not in force a certificate issued by the Intergovernmental Commission stating—

(a) that the Commission are satisfied with a code of practice relating to the conveyance by means of shuttle trains of persons who are disabled which has for the time being been adopted by the Concessionaires; and

(b) that the code of practice has been published in a manner approved by the Commission.

(5) Such a code of practice must contain—

(a) a statement of any description of such persons not intended to be conveyed by means of shuttle trains, with reasons;

(b) details of provision for ensuring the safety of such persons in the tunnel system, in particular the safety in the event of an emergency of such persons being conveyed by means of shuttle trains; and

(c) information relating to such other matters affecting the conveyance by means of shuttle trains of persons who are disabled as the Commission may specify.

(6) Contravention of the restriction imposed by subsection (4) above may be restrained by an order of the High Court made on an application by the Intergovernmental Commission.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston Lord Sefton of Garston moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Insurance cover.
As stated in the Treaty, and regardless of anything contained in Clause 22 or Annexe III of the Concession Agreement, the Concessionaires shall take out and maintain insurance cover for any liabilities incurred by them arising from the construction and operation of the Channel Tunnel.").
The noble Lord said: Before I forget to do so, may I also take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister for the way he has handled the Bill on its way through the House and for putting up with what he may have considered to be my untimely interruptions.
This is the third time that I have spoken on insurance. I make no apology for bringing the matter up again at this late stage. At Report stage I had not received certain information from the Minister which subsequently made me change my mind. I received the information too late as I had already submitted the amendment. The same situation arises today. The Minister at Report stage said that he would write to me if he thought there was anything worth writing about. He evidently thought there was not.
If I remember correctly, the Minister called my amendment otiose. Not being a very literate person, I looked that up. I found that my amendment had been described as "lazy", "sterile", "not required", "serving no practical purpose" and "functionless". If a desire to ensure that people travelling through the tunnel and any expenses arising out of collapse, breakdown or accidents in that tunnel are insured warrants that description, then my education is worse than I thought it was—and at times I think it was pretty bad!
Surely my amendment cannot be described as functionless and futile. It is a point of principle in our society that if someone creates something that ultimately means someone else is damaged or it has an adverse effect on other companies, that person should be responsible either for compensation or for

1175
rectifying the damage. That is all that my amendment seeks to do.
The Minister said that the amendment was futile. He went on to say that it was not necessary because it repeated requirements in the concession agreement. The second point made by the Minister was that it went beyond the agreement. Therefore, it must have done something other than repeat assurances in the agreement. The third point made by the Minister was that it could not be done at a reasonable cost. We have been hearing a lot about privatisation and how the private sector of our society can do things as well as government. I said then that so far as I was concerned I thought that, if this tunnel had to be built, it should have been built from public funds; if the community decided that it should be built, it should be responsible for any damages arising. I still believe that that is absolutely true and a fundamental principle.
If the Government, having been elected on a specific requirement to push forward privatisation, have told the electorate of this country that privatisation is as safe and as good as public ownership, then the same requirements should be put upon the private sector to comply with the simple principle of compensation for damage done. So far as I know, the only way that they can ensure that is to insure against all risks.
The concession agreement says, after the treaty was negotiated saying that insurance shall be taken out, that that should only be done at a reasonable cost. Nobody said what a reasonable cost was and I asked the Minister who would decide that. I have not yet received a reply. I am sure that Members of the House will not be surprised if I say that I am still not satisfied. Users of the tunnel are entitled to know where they stand with regard to insurance.
There is another implication that may be involved. If Eurotunnel cannot find insurers in the private sector to cover such risks, how do we know that an ordinary person can insure himself against the same risks? If it is impossible for Eurotunnel to cover the risk, how can an individual be guaranteed that he can be covered? It may be that the Government, in order to see justice done, will accept that they should do something about covering the risk. I doubt very much whether the Minister will be prepared to say that.
However we look at this matter, this is a government Bill. The Government are laying down the proposals and submitting them to Parliament. Therefore, some responsibility should be laid at their door. If this clause stays as it is and my amendment is defeated, will the Government make the public aware at all times of what the state of insurance is in regard to the tunnel? The proposal is that they should in the first place insure it and then perhaps afterwards, if it becomes unreasonable in someone's opinion, they will stop it. The public are entitled to know. If they are not told, then they will have been deceived.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, may I ask exactly what the point is? I think that what is suggested also happens when half of London is flooded. Is it so unreasonable that there should be claims under the same heading?
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I am not sure that I understood the noble Lord's point. Perhaps he can make it again later.
There should be some duty to inform members of the public whether at any particular time insurance covers the risks that may be involved in going through the tunnel. If the Minister can give me a satisfactory reply about informing the public and an assurance that they will be able to negotiate insurance and that the Government will pick up any tab for damages caused, I may withdraw my amendment. Otherwise I certainly am not inclined to.
I do not want to keep the House very long. However, I wish to make the point that if the tunnel is built under the present Bill and Annex III of the concession agreement, it will be possible for people to travel through it uninsured. I think that that is a disgraceful state of affairs.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord can tell me whether, if a train has an accident and people are killed or injured, British Rail compensates them? As far as I know, it does not.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I do not know. I have some experience of insurance. I could keep the House up until very late tonight if the noble Viscount wants examples. What we are talking about now is the fundamental reason for doing something in advance. I mentioned in a previous debate, when the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, raised the question of too much bureaucracy in the tunnel, that if a little more bureaucracy had existed in Townsend Thoresen we should not have got to the stupid situation in which there was no television monitor showing whether the doors were closed.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, curiously enough I again find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. Relying from my memory, I believe that during the debate in February I raised the question of what the cost of insurance would be. I also wrote to the Minister and received a reply. I did not think that that reply was satisfactory. However, I was not prepared to argue further about it. On the other hand, this is an opportunity for me to say with some certainty that insurance is one of the indeterminate aspects of the whole plan which causes me to feel that the situation is unsatisfactory. Why do we not know? How can we find out? I have sought the advice of insurance men and they ask, "What do you want to insure?". However, I feel it is proper for me to tell your Lordships that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, said.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, for his kind words at the opening of his speech. The reason I have not written to him on the subject is that there was not enough time. I felt it was easier to answer his questions here and now in the House this afternoon.
If I can draw your Lordships' attention to subparagraph (3) of the last paragraph of Annexe III of the concession agreement, this requires the concessionaires to insure their liability to compensate third parties and users in respect of death, bodily

1177
injury or disease, or loss of or damage to their property. Clause 22 of the agreement provides that this obligation shall apply only to the extent that such insurance is available at reasonable cost, because it is possible that unlimited cover against extreme eventualities may be beyond the capacity of the insurance market or would be obtainable only at utterly prohibitive cost.
However, Clause 22 also provides that the concessionaires' insurances shall be subject to the approval of the Intergovernmental Commission, and if the concessionaires contend that cover beyond a certain level is not available at reasonable cost they will have to satisfy the commission that that is so.
The concession agreement simply recognises that in the real world every conceivable eventuality concerning damage to users and third parties may not be insurable. But this question is not left entirely to the concessionaires to decide. The decision will be entirely in the hands of the Intergovernmental Commission; and I remind your Lordships that decisions of the commission require the agreement of both national delegations. So there is no uncertainty about this insurance—at least I feel that there is no uncertainty. I hope that what I have said will satisfy the noble Lord and he will not press the new clause further.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the Minister has merely repeated what. I said in my statement. Of course I referred to Clause 2, of course I referred to the treaty, of course I referred to Part III, and of course I pointed out the matter of reasonable cost of insurance. That is not a new point. The only matter which the Minister has raised which is new to this debate—also inside the agreement—is that it will be the Intergovernmental Commission that will decide whether the tunnel should be insured. I accept that, and I accept it as meaning quite deliberately that the Intergovernmental Commission will decide the issue of reasonable cost. It should be on the record that the Minister has said that.
The Minister then went on to say—if I am wrong, please correct me—that that agreement is subject to the agreement of the national states concerned. In other words, if the British Government do not agree that the tunnel can go on without insurance because of unreasonable cost, then it has to go on willy-nilly. That is what it means, if it means anything at all. If the Minister is smiling to say it does not mean that—if he will tell me it does not mean that—then I shall know what to say next.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there is very little more I can say. If the noble Lord reads what I have said this afternoon, I think he will see that there is definitely going to be a certain level of insurance available which has to be enough to satisfy the Intergovernmental Commission.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, it is evident that the words used by the Minister (namely, that the agreement of the Intergovernmental Commission must be subject to the agreement of both national states) mean what I said they meant. Therefore, the Government cannot escape the blame for allowing people to go through the tunnel and possibly suffer horrific damages without any insurance. That will be
1178
their claim and we do not want any fudging of the issue. That is the situation. It is serious, and strikes at something else, because the third reason for refusing my amendment was that we would have to renegotiate the terms of the agreement. It is evident that we do not have to.
We have now arrived at a situation where the British Government, by refusing to agree that the insurance taken out by Eurotunnel is unreasonable, can ensure that that insurance is taken out and maintained. That is the issue now. In view of the Government's refusal to ensure that this tunnel is insured at all times for all risks I am going to press my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The Question is that Amendment No. 14 shall be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, "Content", to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear the Bar. Tellers for the "Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order. No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
Schedule 7 [Protective provisions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 102, line 41, leave out ("which may result").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also with the leave of the House, to Amendment No. 16. These are drafting improvements. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 103, line 12, leave out second ("in") and insert ("approved under").
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Prison Population
4.41 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement about the prison population which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"The House has from time to time been warned of the dramatic rise in the prison population. Last Friday that population stood at 51,029, nearly 4,000 more than a year ago and over 9,300 above the certified normal accommodation; that is, the uncrowded capacity of the prison system. Six hundred and forty-eight of those prisoners were being held in wholly unsuitable conditions in police cells, so diverting police officers from operational duties.
"The main reason for the latest growth in the population is the substantial increase in the number of offenders being dealt with by the Crown Court, and an increase in the average length of custodial sentences passed by the Crown Court. Moreover, despite our efforts to reduce court delays, the number of prisoners held on remand has gone up by about a further 1,000 over the last year to over 11,000.

1179
"Those who commit serious offences should receive severe sentences. The Government have legislated to increase the sentencing powers of the courts where necessary, and the courts in their decisions have reflected public concern by passing longer sentences; for example, for rape and armed robbery. At the same time, we have made clear, most recently in our election manifesto, the need to strike a balance between tough sentences for those who pose a threat to society and lesser sentences for those who pose no such threat. Hence the emphasis which we have placed on tough and challenging alternatives to custody, to which the courts have responded with a substantial increase in the proportionate use of community service orders.
"Sentencing decisions are for the courts. The responsibility of government is to make sure that the decisions of the courts are not frustrated by lack of prison accommodation. Prisons have to be places with the right levels of security in which prisoners can live, and prison staff can work, in tolerable conditions. The problem of overcrowding, and what it means in practice, is well known to any Member of the House who has visited one of our local prisons. We have 5,000 prisoners crammed three to a cell designed for one. A further 14,000 are doubled up. Virtually all of these people are in their cells for most of the day, relying on pots and periodic slopping out for sanitation. Such overcrowded prisons are hard to control and, I would argue, more likely to result in reoffending.
"This Government have invested record sums in the prison service. Expenditure on the service has increased 34 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and the capital budget has more than doubled. The building programme already known to the House involves the opening of 20 new prisons as well as refurbishment of existing prisons and this will have delivered a total of 17,500 more prison places by 1995. It has been expanded in each of the last two public expenditure rounds. Immediately, the programme will produce some 3,000 new places in the 12 months from September. We are making every effort to maximise the use of the existing prison estate and I should like to pay tribute to the efforts of the prison service in doing so. They are hard pressed and deserve our thanks. However, in recent months the rise in the population has outstripped the supply of new places and the gap between supply and demand looks set to grow wider still. The report by Sir James Hennessy on last year's prison disturbances, which I am publishing today, reminds us all of the delicate balance between order and disorder in our prisons.
"Further action now is essential. That action must be enough to deal with the immediate problem and prevent it recurring. We must also preserve the momentum of our restructuring of working practices under the fresh start initiative.
"I have therefore taken the following decisions. First, immediate steps are being authorised to secure the opening on a temporary basis of a camp for prisoners—Rollestone in Wiltshire—which will hold 360 inmates. This will be managed and staffed by prison service personnel. I shall keep the need
1180
for further camps or other additional temporary accommodation under close review.
"Secondly, we shall also need a substantial expansion and acceleration of our plans to provide more prison places in the longer term. We propose to set this in hand and I will make a further announcement in due course.
"Thirdly, I am sure that the skills and knowledge of the private sector have a bigger part to play in ensuring the speedy delivery of this accelerated programme. It takes too long to build a prison in this country. I am therefore setting up a new prison buildings board within the Home Office but with a strong outsider element to supervise the building programme and to exploit to the full private sector techniques in bringing new prisons on stream. My noble friend Lord Caithness will report immediately to me on further possibilities for using the private sector following his forthcoming visit to the United States.
"Fourthly, I have considered but rejected using the power of executive release to ease the pressure of the prison population. Rather I propose to lay amendments to the rules for prison department establishments increasing the amount of remission dependent upon good behaviour by those serving sentences of up to and including 12 months from one-third to one-half of sentence length. This is an interim measure, applying only to less serious offenders serving short custodial sentences and the period of remission is dependent on good conduct.
"It will remove the anomaly, criticised by the courts, that those on sentences too short to qualify for parole serve a higher proportion of their sentences than more serious offenders who are selected for parole. As it takes effect over the coming weeks it will help the present problem of overcrowding—to the extent of about 3,500 places—by relieving pressure, particularly on local prisons, and enable prisoners to be removed from police cells, thereby returning police officers to their proper duties of dealing with crime and preserving public order on the streets.
"Fifthly, this measure, is as I have said, an interim one, pending a wide-ranging review of parole and remission arrangements. The operation of the parole scheme in relation to shorter sentences has, as I have said, been criticised not least by members of the judiciary. In our manifesto we undertook to set up a thorough review of the workings of the parole system and of the arrangements for post-custodial supervision. I can announce today the setting up of that review which will also look at remission—under the chairmanship of a distinguished former Member of this House, Mr. Mark Carlisle, QC, with terms of reference which I shall publish in full in the Official Report.
"The Government have consistently shown in deeds over the last eight years their commitment to the prison service and to resolving the long-neglected problems of the prison system, including the lack of capital investment and the reform of working practices. The immediate pressure of the rise in the prison population means that we must amplify and extend our strategy. The measures

1181
which I have announced today on prison building, parole and remission, and the opening of Rollestone, are designed to achieve that".
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for repeating the very sombre Statement made in another place by the Home Secretary. It faces up to the crisis that we meet in our prisons today. We debated this matter on Tuesday and I am sure the noble Earl must be regretting that he was not then given the information that he has given the House today. Obviously there have been immediate and recent discussions and decisions on this grave matter.
Before I move on to the content I should like to join in the tribute that the noble Earl paid to the prison service for what its members have had to do and what they have endeavoured to do in the most appalling conditions of service in recent years. The crisis in the prisons was underlined from different parts of the House on Tuesday. We have reached the record figure of 51,029 prisoners in our prisons today, and added to them are the 648 prisoners in police cells about which the police themselves have been complaining. As Mr. James Anderton said, policemen are not gaolers.
What is being proposed to deal with this situation? The Statement points out with frankness that last Friday over 9,300 prisoners above the certified normal accommodation were in prison. That was the measure of the overcrowded state of our prisons. In addition, there were 648 prisoners in police cells. It was essential that action be taken. There were risks of riots and disturbances, apart from the appalling conditions within the prisons which the Statement has frankly admitted and described. It is a shame.
Immediate action is proposed to reduce the size of the prison population to some extent. We shall have to consider whether it goes far enough. The immediate proposal is to provide 360 places in Rollestone Camp. In addition, there is the proposal, which, as far as it goes, we welcome—it may well be that outside the House some will criticise it—for executive release of prisoners. It is hoped that that will reduce the amount of overcrowding by 3,500 prisoners. As the Minister has said, the remission will be dependent upon good behaviour and will relate to those serving sentences of up to 12 months. The remission will be from one-third to one-half of the sentence. That measure, or something similar, was one that the crisis called for.
I wonder why the Government have rejected the proposal made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for executive remission of sentence and the release of prisoners, with the threat of sanction of recall in the event of misbehaviour. I do not know whether that element applies in what is proposed. That proposal was made in 1981. It is one which at that time commended itself to many people. I wonder why it has not been followed, instead of the remission of sentence of 3,500 prisoners.
In addition, the Statement says that it is hoped that in the next 12 months 3,000 more prison places will be provided in the rebuilding programme. That takes us to rather fewer than 7,000 prisoners. After that period, there will still be over 2,000 prisoners above
1182
the certified accommodation in prisons. This is very much an interim measure. More must be done if our shameful prison record is to be dealt with effectively.
We also note the proposal to review the workings of the parole system and the arrangements for post-custodial supervision. The review may be helpful, but I hope there will not be the pressure of the kind that has been brought to bear in this House and elsewhere to limit the usefulness and value of the parole system in certain cases. There must not be greater remission on the one hand and a reduction in releases on parole on the other.
We are grateful for the proposals, as far as they go. We are grateful to the Government for the frankness of the Statement which they have made. The British people have now been placed face to face with something which was a disgrace to our judicial system and to our society.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Earl for repeating the Home Secretary's Statement which was full of good and useful news. To someone like myself who has been singing Cassandra for 15 to 20 years, it is an enormous relief at last to feel that the Government are attempting to face up to a difficult situation. It is much more difficult a situation than it would have been had some action been taken earlier. I am not going to stress that, because when people do what we want them to we must praise them, even if they could have done it a long time before to greater advantage.
I was interested to note that the Home Secretary used, almost word for word, the arguments that I used on 25th September in an Unstarred Question. I am glad that he has given a much more satisfactory answer to those arguments than I received from the Minister. I know that the Minister could not say more than he did, so I do not hold that against him. This is a wonderful change. It is better.
I shall do the sum that the noble and learned Lord spoke to. There are 9,300 prisoners in excess; there will be 3,000 new places in September; there will be increased remission for 3,000 prisoners, and a camp for 360, leaving just under 3,000 places still to be found. In every Session over the past 12 years a noble Lord has asked the Home Office why an Army camp could not be used. It is a great relief to find that we can use one. It need not be the only one. It depends upon whether there are sufficient suitable prisoners among the 12-month or other prisoners.,
The second good point is that, although I was urging executive release, achieving the reduction by increasing the remission of sentence ensures that it will continue. Once it is started, it happens year by year, whereas the process of executive release has to be renewed each year. If it is not renewed every year, we return to the position we were in before. Anything of this kind must therefore continue for some period. It is a great relief to observe that that will be so.
This first step should be enough to eliminate the 648 police-held prisoners. I should like the Minister to tell us how quickly he thinks that step can be achieved. Can it be done overnight? Will it take six weeks, or what?
Secondly, I strongly agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is time that the whole question of

1183
post-custodial supervision, and parole and all its implications, should be looked at afresh. Mr. Mark Carlisle, who after all has had the requisite training, being on the board of NACRO for many years, will be as good a chairman as we could possibly find.
The noble and learned Lord talked about the 1981-proposal made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I think that it was called supervised release. My impression was that it would divide short sentences into three sections. The first third would be served in prison, the second third under supervision and the third third would be remission. I hope that the noble Earl and the Home Secretary will go more carefully into that remedy. We have another 3,000 prisoners to deal with, and I think that process is probably right.
Most 12-month sentences are served in local prisons, but some are served in open prisons. Most trouble arises in the local prisons. I think everyone will welcome this new step with its conditions of non-violence and good behaviour. We think that the Government are at last doing what should have been done a long time ago. We congratulate them and will give them every assistance.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome to the Statement given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. I am particularly grateful for the words of the noble and learned Lord about the prison service. In the short time that I have come to know those concerned extremely well, I feel they have done a marvellous job. Their work is very often underrated by the public at large, as indeed is the work of the headquarters of the prison service and of the civil servants who also play such an important part in the overall picture of the prison service.
I would stress at this stage that although I referred to executive release in the Statement, we are not talking about that. We are talking about remission that has to be earned before an inmate can receive the benefit of it.
Both noble Lords mentioned supervised release. I do not think that I can say any more to them than I did on Tuesday, when I replied to the noble and learned Lord in the debate. It will be a matter that will be part of the review of parole. On the review, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it must not be pressurised. A review is a review and none of us will know what the review will say until the report is published.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said that what we have done today we should have done earlier. With respect to him, I would say that the situation we face today in the prison service could have been mitigated if the last Labour Government had not cut their prison building programme by 35 per cent. in real terms and had not deferred the eight new building projects. Because it takes so long to build a prison in this country—and that is one of the matters that we intend to speed up—we have not been able to catch up from those days.
1184
Both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked about the numbers of prisoners in police cells. I think that it would be useful to the House if I said that in 1986 about 303,350 manhours were spent on this work, which was equivalent to 172 full-time posts. I am sure that the House would agree that this is a fair police commitment. I have to tell the noble and learned Lord opposite that the number in police cells, alas, has gone up since the figure of last Friday. I understand that last night there were 720 people in police cells.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, it is extremely good news that the prisons are coming on stream—the long lead time has been explained—and that more will come on stream fairly soon. Can my noble friend say what has been done by way of studying the American and Swedish systems, one of confinement to the home, and the other of electronic tagging, where a person, instead of going to prison, has to stay at home and is not able electronically to get out of his house? How much study has there been of that system?
Many people who go to prison have a long record of offences, very often starting with youth custody and so on. Youth custody has a very small record of cure. However, if one looks ahead to the prison population in a few years' time those who receive intermediate treatment have about a 50 per cent. chance of going straight afterwards. Can he assure the House that every possible encouragement is given to the full use of intermediate treatment in order to try to improve the situation in the future?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend raised a number of points about non-custodial sentences. I would refer him to what I said on Tuesday in the debate on the Criminal Justice Bill, when I answered in some detail, in particular on the point that he has raised, which was also raised at that time by my noble friend Lord Elton.
We have the widest range of non-custodial sentences in Western Europe. The number of community service orders handed down by the courts has virtually trebled since 1978. Probation and community service orders account now for some 16 per cent. of disposals for indictable offences compared with 9 per cent. in 1979. My noble friend also raised the question of electronic tagging. I can tell him that I shall look at this system in operation in Florida when I go to the United States in September.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that the very problems that he has outlined concerning overcrowding in prisons would be much alleviated if the suggestions that I made on what I may perhaps call the first Criminal Justice Bill—which came into your Lordships' House before the general election—were considered rather more seriously? As some noble Lords were not then present I shall briefly state the suggestions I ask the Government very seriously to bear in mind. I believe they reflect the wishes of many people in this country. These are the reintroduction of the death penalty—to the extent that it does not include hanging; castration

1185
for second time offenders for rape; flogging for bullies and thugs; and deportation for certain second offenders. This would go a long way towards reducing our prison population. I hear some cries of dissent from noble Lords opposite; but I believe that noble Lords opposite know perfectly well that many of these suggestions have a degree of support from many people in the country, and so should be thought about rather more deeply.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, some of the points that my noble friend has just mentioned were debated at length in another place. Although my noble friend gave me notice that he was going to raise the matter in detail at Committee stage on Criminal Justice Bill (Mark I) we never quite reached that stage. I am sure that my noble friend will raise it on Mark II, the Bill before your Lordships' House, when he will be able more fully to deploy his arguments.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I would beg the noble Lord not to do any such thing. I wonder whether the noble Earl will permit me to say that I do not want to follow him in any criticism of his government or of my government. He must remember on this national issue that one cannot have it both ways. One cannot be proud of being the third Government of the Conservative Party in consecutive terms and then start referring to what other government have or have not done in the past. One cannot have it both ways. It is much more sensible that this House seriously considers this as a national crisis and a national issue, and that we pool our brains to try to do something about it.
The first issue is surely this. Are there sufficient alternatives to imprisonment which are practical and effective at this stage? I would love the noble Earl in his courtesy to deal with this complaint that I hear: that community service orders—although they are very sensible because they have a rehabilitating effect which prisons do not have and are therefore most useful, apart from emptying our prisons—cannot effectively be made in many parts of the country because there is insufficient staff to man them and not sufficient organisation. Can he tell the House whether that criticism is right and, if it is, can he do something about it?
The second issue concerns premises. It is a very good idea to set up a board to inquire into whether we can have more prisons built more quickly and more cheaply. But what about refurbishing the dreadful prisons that we have, which produce the situation the noble Earl recited in the Statement that he repeated to us this afternoon? Therefore can the board also look at quick, economic and sensible methods of refurbishing our dreadful old prisons?
The last point—I make is on terms of reference with regard to the parole board. The noble Earl said perfectly fairly, "Let us wait and see what they do". I am looking—as I always do with some admiration, and at times some sense of opposition—to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who has many determined views on parole; and they are not usually in the direction of increasing but rather of decreasing parole awards. Would the Minister be good enough to indicate to the House whether one of the terms of
1186
reference of this review will be concerned with whether or not recommendations are to be made for increasing the powers of parole in view of the critical situation in our prisons?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the terms of reference for parole will indeed be published in the Official Report. One of the terms will take into account the possibility of prisoners released before expiry of sentence being required to perform work of value to the community, having regard to the relative cost and effectiveness of custodial and non-custodial disposals.
The noble Lord criticised the effectiveness of the financing of the community service order. It is the first time I have heard that criticism and it is one I shall want to look into. With regard to the prison building programme, we must not forget one important point. I refer to the difficulty of getting planning permission on some occasions. One can streamline the building process; but while members of the public may be all for having another prison, they do not want it on their doorstep. This can lead to delays—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Earl misunderstood me—
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am just coming to refurbishment. I wanted to get that point across first.
It is in the old Victorian prisons, the local prisons, that we need refurbishment. They are the most overcrowded. We have first to decant the inmates from a wing in order that refurbishment can take place. This has just happened in one of the wings of Liverpool prison which I was pleased to reopen the other day. The prison building programme will relieve the pressure on the local prisons, as will the effect of the Statement today. We shall then, I hope, be able to increase the speed with which refurbishment is carried out.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, while I welcome the Statement, I want to express some disappointment that there is no reference in it to the question of prisoners on remand. It was stated in a debate only the other day that some 38 per cent. of the prisoners on remand—I give that figure from memory—do not get custodial sentences. This seems a totally unnecessary loading of the prison population with people who ought not be be there. Surely there are steps that could be taken—an increase in the number of bail hostels is only one—to cut down the number of people on remand who are taking up places in prison.
The Government should give the maximum help to organisations which are doing what they can to see that people coming out of prison do not return. Recidivism puts up the figures in a quite unnecessary way.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have increased the number of places in a bail hostels, a subject on which the noble Baroness is a far greater expert than me. I agree with her that recidivism is one

1187
of the curses of the prison service and that we must do all we can to stop it.
The noble Baroness mentioned a figure of 38 per cent. I understand that of the total 100 per cent. that come into that category, 8 per cent. are acquitted and the remaining 30 per cent. either get non-custodial sentences, such as community services orders, or suspended sentences.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that national officers of the Prison Officers Association, who were in this building earlier today and heard his parliamentary colleague make the Statement, give a general welcome to the measures contained in it? Any relief of the intolerable conditions not only of prisoners but also of prison officers is to be warmly welcomed. They particularly welcome the figure of 50 per cent. on remission but they are anxious that a counter-balance of increased sentences will not nullify the benefit of remission. Will the Minister comment on that possibility?
Can the Minister say why the figure of 12 months was put forward? It is acknowledged that this is an interim measure, that it has to start somewhere and that it will be kept under review. Could the Government not have been more bold and, instead of 12 months, made the period one of two years or even more? Will the Minister accept that the use of Rollestone camp is looked upon by prison officers as a move in the right direction but that they are somewhat concerned about the impact this will have on the number of officers that will be required to man this new eastablishment from the already depleted complement of prison officers in the service? The Minister referred to a "fresh start". Is there not a great shortfall in the number of prison officers required to get it off the ground? Will the Minister comment on that?
Does the Minister accept that the speeding up of the prison building programme and the injection into the prison service of additional funds will be warmly welcomed by the prison officers.?
Finally, is he aware that they will certainly listen with great care to a man for whom they have the highest respect—Mr. Mark Carlisle—when he brings forward his report on and review of the parole system?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. I am particularly pleased about the general welcome that the Prison Officers Association has given to the Statement today. I agree with the noble Lord that it will give relief to prison officers. They sometimes work in not terribly good conditions. It has been one of the failings of the building programme in the past that it has not sufficiently taken into account the requirements of staff.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Appalling conditions.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the possibility of the judiciary increasing sentences. It is the judiciary who pass sentences. We
1188
limited the effect of the 50 per cent. remission to 12 months because that is where the effect of the flattening out under Section 33 of the 1982 Act is most felt. That has been the subject of some criticism from the judiciary. I hope that the judiciary will see this as a positive step in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, said that there was a depleted complement of prison officers. I find it difficult to agree with him. Since 1979 the prison population has risen by some 11 per cent. while the number of prison officers has risen by 20 per cent. There has been a considerable increase in prison staff. With regard to shortages of staff, this is very difficult to determine at the present time until each establishment is assessed on its individual basis. As soon as each establishment has been assessed we will know the full staff position.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, will the Minister agree that those of us who have urged upon him and the Government, year after year, month after month, the use of camps and the building of camps to prevent the Government being overrun by events, have done so for two reasons? The first is that the camps can be built and used in an emergency; and it takes so long to build prisons. The second is that they can be used for the purpose of housing remand prisoners who do not require a high degree of security. Those suggestions have been made, certainly by me, for the past eight years. Can the Minister now give the House an undertaking that in this emergency, which many of us have prophesied over and over again, these camps will be used for the purpose of housing remand prisoners so that remand prisoners can be taken out of the local prisons and out of the police cells, and the local prisons can be used for the purpose of convicted prisoners? This is the centre of solving the problem. These camps should not be used simply to provide further places for convicted prisoners.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, said that remand prisoners do not require such high security.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, with great respect, I said those of the remand prisoners who do not require so high a degree of security.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall qualify what I said and I am grateful to the noble Lord—that those are the remand prisoners. We must not forget that these are people who have not been allowed bail and therefore in the eyes of the court are considered to need some sort of security in order to protect the public.
I fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, about using camps for remand prisoners in the case of Rollestone. One of the great disadvantages of Rollestone is its inaccessibility for remand prisoners. As the noble Lord knows better than I do, remand prisoners are entitled to visits every day, and they are entitled at the moment to receive their own food brought in from outside. On my visits to local prisons, those on remand have said that they would much rather be in the "local" than in a camp on Salisbury Plain. That

1189
is why we intend to use Rollestone for sentenced prisoners.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, with regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is it not clear that the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has said again and again that judges do not take into account, and are not permitted to take into account, questions of remission in imposing a custodial sentence or in coming to a conclusion as to whether a non-custodial sentence should be imposed?
In regard to the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to go to Rollestone in order to visit a man he is going to defend at the Old Bailey, because I fancy that he would be too busy to do so.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend for his remarks. Of course he is absolutely right on both counts.

Channel Tunnel Bill
5.22 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
When I moved on 16th February of this year, That the Bill be now read a second time, I said that we had waited a long time for this debate. I did not mean just the 10 months (now 15) since the Bill was introduced in another place. Rather I was thinking of the 12 years since a similar Bill was abandoned just before it came to your Lordships' House. One could have added that it was nearer 200 years since the possibility of a tunnel was first raised. So this is an historic time.
The Bill has been with us for five months but we have seen it for only a part of that time on the Floor of the House. After Second Reading it was sent to a hybrid Bill Select Committee. It remained there for two months. I cannot commend too highly the dedication and care of that committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who was assisted by my noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth, the noble Lord Lord Galpern, my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, my noble friend Lord Holderness and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. The committee received 1,467 petitions from those whose private interests where affected. It saw at first hand the impact of this project—the environmental consequences it will have in parts of Kent and London. It sat for 30 days, and visited sites in Kent and Waterloo. It listened with sympathy and understanding to petitioners and to the arguments of their learned counsel.
Your Lordship's Select Committee made 109 amendments to the Bill; it received a large number of assurances from the promoters; and its special report contained 147 paragraphs. It found compromises, acceptable to most petitioners, on the road access to the Cheriton terminal, on the alignment of the railway across the sensitive Holywell Coombe, on the terminal's drainage and on the routeing of
1190
construction vehicles. It also identified many of the issues we have discussed this month in full Committee and at Report. Since the Bill returned from the Select Committee it has received substantial amendments on certain important questions.
First, following the debate in Committee on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Teviot we have inserted a new clause on on-train controls, a matter of great concern to your Lordships. This is an important move towards ensuring that the benefits of the tunnel in operation are properly distributed to all parts of the country. Indeed it complements Clause 40 on British Rail's plan for an international service, which was inserted by the Select Committee. Then after the debate on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, at Committee and Report stages, there is the new provision that the House has just agreed to insert in Clause 19 requiring a code of practice for the transport of disabled people, which has been welcomed in all parts of the House. My noble friend Lord Belstead—whom I must thank for sharing much of the task of replying from this Bench—has been of great assistance, I believe, in offering some reassurance and clarification to noble Lords on other matters. We have benefited from the wide experience of Members of this House. I must thank all your Lordships for your work while the Bill was going through.
Once passed by this place and accepted by another place, this Bill will pass into law. The treaty can then be ratified by both Governments, the French Parliament having already completed its scrutiny of their legislation. Then in London the leading role will move down river to the City, for this is a private sector project and it is for the private sector company, Eurotunnel, to convince the markets that it is a worthwhile investment. The company expects to complete very shortly the syndication of the £5 billion project loan. It plans to raise the major tranche of equity capital later this year. As the Government have made clear from the start, in the treaty, in the concession and now in the Bill, the project is to be carried out without any financial support or guarantees from public funds. The Bill before your Lordships ensures that there will be no such call on the public purse either directly or via British Rail.
The construction of the link will bring some £1 billion worth of orders to industry in this country, and that must flow through to creating jobs. The operation of the tunnel offers benefits in three areas. There will be a shuttle service for cars and passengers operated by Eurotunnel; and there will be for the first time a direct rail link between this country and the Continent. British Rail estimates that the growth in rail freight will take some 1,500 heavy lorries off the roads every day. Others suggest the figure could be higher. Finally there will be the international passenger services from London and regional centres to Brussels, Paris and beyond. Nineteen ninety three will see truly the light at the end of the tunnel.
So we have played our part in the eventual creation of a fixed link between this country and the Continent of Europe in what the Select Committee called,
"the greatest engineering project in Europe ever undertaken by the private sector",

1191
and in perhaps a greater spiritual and cultural link with our European partners. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the Minister has said, we are approaching the end of the long parliamentary period through which this Bill has passed. I want to make just a few brief comments and in these I am associated with my noble friend Lord Carmichael, who has shared with me responsibility from the Opposition Front Bench.
I too should like to thank the Select Committee for its work. There is not the slightest doubt that without the Select Committee our sittings might have been longer. It has been extremely helpful. We are particularly grateful to the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who so far as I could see from my position here has remained in that seat through practically all our deliberations and has intervened on a number of occasions. The committe went deeply into the environmental matters and some of those recommendations were carried through during our Committee and Report stages.
I must also thank the Minister. He has carried on this immense task for the Government almost single handedly, except when he was helped on one or two occasions by his noble friend Lord Belstead on environmental matters. We may have disagreed with him—indeed, I know we have, because I did—but he has been extremely courteous and paid considerable attention to the detail and contents of the Bill, and we are grateful to him.
The Minister referred to two important amendments, those on disablement and on-train Customs facilities. Without the slightest doubt the Minister must have played some part in ensuring that those two important amendments were included in the Bill. I naturally regret that the amendment that we promoted from these Benches for inland Customs depots was not carried. It was defeated by only 17 votes. However, 17 votes is a defeat. We only hope that British Rail will pick it up and, in discussions with manufacturers in the regions, will endeavour to establish inland Customs depots wherever it will be helpful to our manufacturing trade.
I believe that we in this House have been particularly useful in discussing various safety matters, in accordance with the Select Committee's insistence. I believe that those matters have been important in our debates. We also have on record a number of important statements made by the Minister on various issues. I think that they will also be extremely helpful.
As is generally known, we wanted a full economic inquiry before the project proceeded. I make clear the fact that we want to see the sea ferries continue. We believe that there must be choice for both passengers and freight between the fixed tunnel and the sea ferries.
We hope that the project will meet the objectives of most of us. One of the reasons why we were in favour of the fixed tunnel link was that freight opportunities
1192
will be grasped by British Rail and by manufacturers. We can then bring assistance to areas North of Watford—the Midlands, the North, Scotland and Wales—by the fast freight train into Europe. I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, from these Benches I support the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in thanking the Minister in particular, and other noble Lords who have taken part but who have not always been part of the transport club in this House. It is usually a small and select band of noble Lords who sit through Committee and Report stages of transport Bills. They can be counted on the figures of one hand.
I should like to apologise to a number of noble Lords because it has been drawn to my attention—I was not aware of it—that in summing up the amendment that I moved this afternoon, I was discourteous enough to mention some noble Lords without referring to them as "noble Lords". That perhaps indicates the degree of chumminess that exists within the transport club, but I apologise to them profusely. I did not intend to cast any doubt on their nobility.
The Select Committee is to be greatly commended, along with its chairman. It undoubtedly saved not only this House a great deal of time but it went as far as it could to alleviate the fears and problems of people living in Kent particularly and perhaps to a lesser degree those in the Waterloo area. The exercise which it carried out is one of which it can be proud, and this Parliament must thank the committee.
There are issues in the Bill which we on these Benches should have preferred to have been different. We should have preferred it to have been a publicly-funded Bill, at least to a degree. We should have preferred it to have been a rail only Bill. We should have preferred to have Customs and Immigration on the trains from Waterloo. However, those matters have been fully debated and decided upon by your Lordships' House.
The message that must go out from this Chamber, and which I hope will go out from Parliament as a whole when the Bill goes back to another place and receives Royal Assent, is that the Parliament of this country is united in its determination for the nation to make a success of the tunnel project. It is a mighty project. The onus now lies with private industry, bankers, manufacturers and people up and down the country who work in projects associated with the tunnel. As I said when we were discussing the Green Paper on the Bill and at every stage of its progress, I believe that this project can do a tremendous amount to improve the economy of this country; it can revivify parts of the country which at the moment are suffering.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston—now one of the club—has rightly made references to Liverpool. I believe that that is one of the areas that can benefit greatly from the tunnel. There is a chance that business can return to Liverpool and that it can compete with the ports of Rotterdam and Hamburg

1193
in a way in which it has previously been unable to do. That is an example of the potential which exists. I hope that the nation will grasp that potential which lies behind the Bill. I wish the Bill and the tunnel every success.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister and the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, for the generous tributes which have been paid to the Select Committee and its chairman. The former are certainly deserved; I am not so sure about the latter.
I confess that I felt great alarm when I was invited to chair the committee. My apprehensions grew when I learnt that it was to have no fewer than five former Ministers, and I doubted whether I should be able to be heard. However, they were extremely indulgent of me. That I was heard—unfortunately—lies in the record of 1,150 pages of evidence.
The only member of the committee to cause us slight anxiety was not a Minister, although he was a distinguished Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means in another place. It arose during the first week of our hearings when we heard evidence from the Kent Hang-Gliding Club. The noble Lord showed so much enthusiasm for this pastime that I was fearful we might lose a quorum, but with his usual kindness he agreed to postpone taking it up until later in life.
It was an immensely interesting experience and I am grateful for the marvellous support that I received from the committee. I am pleased that our report was of some use to the House in its further deliberations on the Bill. I think that it would be wrong—as we were sitting quasi-judicially—for me to comment about the project other than to say that I wish it very well.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I should like to refer to the final paragraphs of the Select Committee report. Despite the constraints of its terms of reference, the committee felt obliged—and I think rightly—to draw attention to the need now to ensure that the benefits of the tunnel, when it is built, are spread across the country as a whole and not allowed to stop in Kent, London and the Home Counties. The duty for achieving that falls fairly and squarely on British Rail; and only British Rail can achieve it.
In its final paragraph the committee expressed the hope that all sectors of the economy will rise to and profit from the challenges which the tunnel will offer. There is little in British Rail's behaviour so far which gives me good grounds for thinking that that hope will be fulfilled. I say that for three reasons. It has taken Parliament until the last stage of this Bill in another place to wring from my noble friend on the Front Bench an amendment about on-train controls. I refer your Lordships to the Official Report for 13th July 1987, at col. 876. I should have thought that British Rail ought to have been on to that matter even before the Bill went before Parliament.
Let us take the case of the Waterloo issue. Any developer worthy of his salt would have seen that when one is about to embark on something of the scale which is proposed, one would have taken trouble a long time in advance to consult with the local communities and authorities. British Rail in fact
1194
installed an information kiosk about their proposals for Waterloo when the Bill was already well under way in the other place. They then thought they had done enough about it.
Finally, I had occasion, as chairman of the South-East Regional Planning Conference, to write on their behalf to the Minister of Transport earlier this year about the impact all this was making on the home counties and how it was to be handled in the context of county structure plans, and so on. After some correspondence with him, he suggested that the remainder of the matters should be pursued with British Rail. A letter was sent to them on the 18th May, and I am still awaiting a reply, let alone being engaged in any constructive discussions with them.
So when the Committee say, as they do, that they hope all sectors of the economy will rise to and profit from the challenges offered by this tunnel and when other noble Lords say—as they have, quite rightly—that they hope the benefits will be spread across the country, we need to recognise that this depends crucially on British Rail. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will see that they get up to the mark.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I should like to join my noble friends in saying how much we appreciate the work of the Minister and of the Select Committee. Indeed I think your Lordships can be congratulated on the thoroughness with which this Bill has been looked at. Certainly we have disproved the commentator in The Times, who said at the beginning of this new Session that the Channel Tunnel Bill "will go through their Lordships' House on the nod". I am sure no one would say that is what has happened.
I am reminded of the oft-quoted remark of a former distinguished Member of this House who, when referring to the Prime Minister of the day, said, "He is the best Prime Minister we have." I feel very much the same way about the tunnel. I think it would be probably easier to find a new Prime Minister than to find a new tunnel in today's circumstances because, whether we like the tunnel project or not, if it fails it will put back the prospect of a fixed link for an enormous period of time. That is why I would suggest that when the Bill becomes an Act and the treaty is ratified that is not the end of the story for Parliament: it is merely the beginning. We still have an enormous job to do and I hope the Minister and his colleagues will keep both Houses of Parliament fully involved in what is going on.
I am bound to say I am disappointed to find that we are approaching this enormous challenge in the 21st century with the technology of the 19th. I am far from satisfied that this shuttle scheme is going to be satisfactory. I can see that it has the superficial attraction that if you have people sitting in their cars you can get them on and off the trains probably more quickly than would be possible if you adopted any other means. But certainly from the little one has heard about it, I sense that it has been a matter of some dispute within the Eurotunnel organisation itself.

1195
I derive a lot of satisfaction from what is now Clause 24 of the Bill, which places squarely on the Secretary of State the responsibility for approving the specification. I hope and believe that will be very conscientiously done because, as my noble friend said in his remarks, it seems that in a recent statement of a conference the Customs union expressed some doubt about the safety of their members if they have to work on the trains. As the Minister said, six years is a long time. I would suggest there is an enormous job still to be done to satisfy the public and the workforce that the tunnel is going to be safe.
My other worry is whether in fact the project is going to be viable. It is to be a commercial undertaking, and I fully accept that it has to be operated in that way. We have already heard doubts expressed by a number of distinguished Members of the House as to the practice of using compulsory purchase powers for public purposes and then passing on the benefit of that to private enterprise for commercial purposes. Certainly I would not suggest that as it is going to be commercial it should be subsidised; but I have grave doubts as to whether British Rail can carry the full burden that will obviously be placed upon it if it is to do all the great things that we are promised. For example, I wonder whether it will make the kind of impact one would want to see in trying to ease the problem of the North-South divide.
I was recently reading the EuroWest Port Study which was commissioned in respect of the Clyde. It was being suggested that the River Clyde might be revitalised and its port used as being nearer to the United States, for example, and that cargoes could travel by train through the tunnel bound for destinations in Europe. Apparently it has been decided that would not be a viable proposition. I recall also that in 1974–75 it was the under-estimate of the amount of work and the cost for the railways which represented one of the enormous problems which led ultimately to the abandonment of that project.
Also we have been reading of the immense importance that Eurotunnel place on the revenues from the railways. The Minister has said that it is a commercial matter but we have not been given, either in this House or in the other place, any details of the agreement that was recently negotiated between Eurotunnel, British Rail and its French equivalent. I came across a cutting from the Newcastle Journal dated the 6th July, which says:
"News of the growth in cross-Channel traffic comes on top of the recent deal with British Rail and its French equivalent SNCF to pay more for using the tunnel. The agreement, negotiated by new Eurotunnel chairman Alastair Morton, means that the railways have to pay 60 per cent of the revenue forecast, whether the passengers actually turn up or not"—
I would underline the last phrase—
"for the first 12 years of the tunnel's life.".
It seems a little odd that the Newcastle Journal should have information which has not been made available to Parliament, so far as I know. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is so. As I have said in earlier discussions on this theme, this should be a matter which is before the public before they are
1196
invited to subscribe for shares in the enterprise. This is clearly a vital matter and whereas time after time we have been told by the Minister that six years is a long time and many things can be taken care of in that time, it seems that Mr. Morton was not prepared to wait even six weeks after taking office before getting an agreement tying the railways for 12 years, starting in 1993.
As I say, one hopes, because this is now the only chance, that they will resolve these problems. However, I am bound to say that I have grave doubts about the viability of the project and I hope that if any problems arise Parliament will be kept fully informed.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, welcomed me to a club. I am not quite sure what the club was but if it was one that included the wholehearted support of the tunnel Bill in its present state, I must decline membership. I have already paid tribute to the Minister for the very nice, courteous and efficient way that he has handled the Bill and it would be churlish of me not to add my thanks to the chairman and the members of the committee who have done so much work on the Bill. However, there is just one small point (as some may think) I should like to make arising out of what has been said. There was a dreadful moment when I thought we were going to get into a Second Reading debate again on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
I do not blame British Rail for what may be the serious consequences of this tunnel and its activities on the rest of the country. I certainly hope that the benefits of the tunnel will be spread evenly and equitably throughout the nation. I only attempted, as the Bill has gone through your Lordships' House, to point out that there was a danger that they would not. I do not blame British Rail for carrying out the task that has been laid down for it—that is, to service industry, to service commerce and to service passengers. My fear was that the mere presence of the Channel Tunnel in the South-East of England would exacerbate the difficulties of the North-South divide.
At this late stage all that I urge on the Government is that they take heed of the warnings about the exacerbation of the North-South divide, and consider whether they are coming true. If so, they should not close the tunnel or Canary Wharf, even though the financial world seems to be almost on the threshold of doing so according to the popular press; nor should they damage the City of London. They should ensure that, as concentration of the private sector increases in the South East, something is done to redress the balance by decentralising government activity away from the South East and into the regions.
A large amount of government activity, including Civil Service jobs and the Department of Employment, should be in the north where most of their customers are to be found. Government activities need not all be located in the South East. Then perhaps serious damage caused by the unequal distribution of resources within the economy may be prevented. I wish the Minister well and thank him and his department.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to offer the House a few thoughts at this last stage of the Bill. First of all, I should say that I began my work on this Bill as a member of the Select Committee who was enthusiastically in favour of a Channel Tunnel; but I believe that I and others on the committee who took a similar view listened to the evidence with minds as fair and open as possible. I have no doubt that it is in the interests of the people of this country that the tunnel should exist. I believe that it will act as an instrument of economic regeneration not only in the south east of England but in many parts of the north as well.
There are one or two points that should be made about our procedures. I have no doubt that it was right to proceed with this measure by means of a hybrid Bill. If there had been a series of public inquiries—as indeed was urged upon us—they would have stretched over many years, which of course was desired by many of the people who wanted a public inquiry. In the final analysis they would have persuaded nobody because the people who did not want the tunnel and the very substantial facilities around Folkestone would have remained as passionately opposed to it if there had been a public inquiry as they were under the hybrid Bill procedure. The same goes for those living around Waterloo.
Having said that in terms of this project, which after all is probably the biggest public works project that will be undertaken for the rest of this century, I think it is necessary to make one further comment. One should look with considerable care at any other substantial project of this kind having these procedures attached to it. We have to accept that some people's rights were undoubtedly affected because of the character of the hybrid Bill inquiry system. When taking part in a public inquiry one has the right to announce one's opposition in principle to what is proposed. But, as was made quite clear, on a number of matters the committee was not prepared to hear arguments in regard to principle on the grounds that both Houses of Parliament had given this Bill a Second Reading.
Undoubtedly some people had a very real sense of grievance. As I have already made clear, I think that the Government were right to act as they did in this particular case, but I do not think that the Government should persuade themselves in the future that the same happy method can be used so far as concerns other projects. One must look very carefully at the civil rights of many of the people who felt that their interests were substantially adversely affected by this scheme but did not have the opportunity of arguing against the principle of it.
I repeat that I am a warm enthusiast of this Bill. However, there are two further observations that I should like to make. Like my noble friend Lord Tordoff I believe that the Bill has been significantly improved in Committee. The amendment of my noble friend Lady Stedman, undoubtedly improved the Bill, and I believe that on-train Customs controls north of London were an exceptionally important issue. I shall not go over the same ground again, but it was made absolutely clear to the Select Committee that without such controls there would be no effective railway services to the Continent from trains starting
1198
or ending their journey north of London. In my view the fact that we now have that measure on the statute book represents a major improvement to the project.
I note what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said a few moments ago about his experience with British Rail. I hope he will forgive me for saying that I think that he was a little unfair. Most of my colleagues took the view that British Rail had presented its evidence fairly and discharged difficult responsibilities competently. As an illustration of his discontent he said that he had written to British Rail on the 18th May and had not yet received a reply. I am sorry about that. Unhappily, I must tell him that at about the same time I wrote to a member of the Cabinet concerned with this Bill and I have not as yet had a reply either. No doubt we shall both be successful over the next week or so and receive replies on the matters that we raised. It is only fair to say that we all—if I may speak for all my colleagues on the committee—believed that British Rail had handled its difficult responsibilities with some degree of fairness.
My final point is that I did not and still do not like the term "safety authority". I did not think that it was appropriate to put down an amendment on this point. It was dealt with rather elliptically in our report. There is not a safety authority; there is the Safety Advisory Committee, which fortunately now has the power, as a result of a concession made by the Government while the committee was still sitting to publish any strong opinions that it may hold if its advice is disregarded. That was an exceptionally important concession so far as the Government were concerned, which I think was the view of the whole committee.
I come to my conclusion. Although there are many angry people in Kent and many angry people around Waterloo—all those who heard their evidence sympathised very greatly with many of them—nevertheless, I regard this as a great moment of opportunity for this country once and for all to put through this project. Like my noble friend Lord Tordoff I should have preferred it to have been part public and part privately financed. Nevertheless, I very much hope that Eurotunnel succeeds in raising the very substantial capital that is required.
All the members of the committee, or very nearly all, took the view that Eurotunnel had handled its case with responsibility and sensitivity and that everything we saw of Eurotunnel was a very good augury for the future. On this occasion I simply represent my own views in wishing this project great success. I believe that it represents a dramatic change with our relationship with the Continent of Europe.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I shall shorten the observations I intended to make and very simply echo the nice sentiments that have been expressed concerning the Minister, the Select Committee and its chairman. I should also like to offer my thanks and, I am sure, the thanks of many of my colleagues in this House who have taken part in the debates on this Bill, to both the Minister's officials and to those whom I might call our own advisers on this side of the House. Whenever we had a point—and quite often it was a

1199
point that was not particularly sympathetic to the views that they were advancing—they were always helpful and willing to advise us.
My own special pleasure in the Bill arises inevitably from Clause 12, relating to on-train controls. I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that the matter of on-train controls was raised in a debate that took as its theme whether we should have a fixed link at all and if so which of the four it should be. I can assure him that in marshalling my thoughts when I raised it, I had very considerable assistance from British Rail as to practice and custom abroad. I agree utterly with what the Minister and several of my noble friends said; namely, that that amendment will go far towards spreading the benefits. It will also, I feel, play a significant part in making the tunnel more user-friendly for the passenger side of the business.
I have one question. Amendment No. 12 excludes those services which call at stations beyond London and the Channel Tunnel portal at Cheriton. I do not want to rehearse old arguments at all. However, I wonder whether I may ask what may be the last question on this Bill in this House. May I ask the noble Lord the Minister what effect Clause 12 will have on the status of the proposed international station at Ashford and, in particular, will he confirm that it will still go ahead? I feel that the Channel Tunnel can be bracketed with perhaps the Suez Canal or the Panama Canal as a really mammoth venture. I wish it, and indeed the Bill that underpins it, every success.
6 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, may I very briefly close this debate by thanking all noble Lords who have been kind enough to pay tribute to my handling of the Bill in your Lordships' House. A number of noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble friend Lord Sandford, have said that this Bill now places a heavy responsibility upon British Rail to make sure that they take the freight opportunities which lie before them around the whole country. I can only endorse those sentiments and hope that British Rail will rise to the occasion and get this traffic which would be so valuable both to them and in terms of taking traffic off the roads.
I should like to agree thoroughly with the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Harris of Greenwich, that this represents a great opportunity for the country and that the message should go from this House that we want to make a success of the project. The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, had doubts perhaps about the commercial agreement between British Rail and Eurotunnel as to their contribution to the costs of running the project. That is a matter for British Rail, but I am sure that they would not have entered into the agreement unless they thought that they could make money out of it.
I can also assure the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, that Parliament will hear more about this over the next few months and years. There are regulations under Clause 11 which will be laid before Parliament to give
1200
the force of law to regulations of the Intergovernmental Commission and of course other matters which will have to come before Parliament.
I should like briefly to pick up one point which was raised just now by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, about the station at Ashford. Of course Ashford will be an international station, but I can confirm that British Rail are looking at a number of alternative locations for the international terminal and platforms at Ashford. All of those alternatives are within the wider area which includes the present station's facilities, the proposed international car park beside the diverted A.2070 and the former British Rail Ashford works; that is to say, within a quarter of a mile east or west of the position described in the Bill.
If British Rail decided to go ahead on a site other than the one in the Bill, the alternative scheme would have to be authorised either by a private Bill or by a planning application to the borough council. But a private Bill would only be necessary if it were not possible to accommodate the station on British Rail operational land.
So I am grateful once more to all who have taken part in our debates on this Bill. The Bill should now pass with the good-will of this House and much improved by this House. We have debated the issues fully and constructively and I believe that we are sending forward a piece of legislation of historic importance and with exciting prospects for the country as a whole.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

British Railways (London) Bill [H.L.]
6.4 p.m.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. As many of your Lordships will be aware, I had the privilege of moving the Second Reading of this Bill when it was debated by your Lordships' House on 18th March last. Little did I think that it would be necessary to be troubling your Lordships yet again, but I must crave your Lordships' indulgence while I explain once more the provisions of the Bill and, in addition, provide an indication of what has happened to the Bill since it was given a Second Reading. I do so because I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, intends to press his objections.
I do not propose to weary your Lordships with more information than is necessary for the purpose of this debate, but I need to explain that the purpose of the Bill is to empower the British Railways Board to construct works as part of an exciting new scheme to provide a rail service across the River Thames and to institute what is known as the Thames Link. The effect of this would be to demolish most of the existing viaduct between Holborn Viaduct station and Blackfriars station which at present carries the railway by means of a bridge over Ludgate Hill.
The proposed new railway would drop below ground just north of the existing viaduct at Blackfriars and follow a route just east of the viaduct

1201
and so connect with the Snow Hill tunnel to King's Cross by way of a new station immediately to the north of Ludgate Hill. Holborn Viaduct station would no longer be required and, with the demolition of most of the viaduct, there would be a considerable enhancement of the amenities of the locality to the west of St. Paul's and improved potential for development of an increasingly important area, much of which has lain derelict since being destroyed by bombing during the war.
That will permit the introduction of through-passenger services from the Midland lines to the north of London, and from north of the river to destinations in the southern region. So for the first time there will be regular through-trains through London from places like Bedford and Luton to places like Gatwick and Brighton.
The Bill attracted 18 petitions in Select Committee, many of which were lodged by those objecting to the effects of the board's proposals so far as their own properties, or properties which they leased from the Railways Board, were concerned. Several had a particular interest in the arches beneath the viaduct which will be demolished under the terms of the Bill. Negotiations with petitioners resulted in the withdrawal of all but one of the 18 petitions. In consequence, only the petition of a brewery company, Whitbreads, was referred and considered by the Select Committee which met to consider the Bill on 5th, 6th and 7th May.
Whitbreads are the owners of a freehold pub called the Old King Lud public house which stands at the corner of Ludgate Hill and Farringdon Street, overlooking Ludgate Circus, and, in conjunction with this property, they occupy part of the railway arches immediately to the east as tenants of British Rail. Whitbreads also occupy arches nearer Blackfriars and use these as a wine bar known as Ludgate Cellars. Whitbreads use both sets of arches as part of their business and they strongly objected not only to the acquisition of the freehold of the Old King Lud, but also to the loss of their leasehold interest in the adjoining arch accommodation and Ludgate Cellars.
Notwithstanding the arguments which were advanced by the petitioners to the Select Committee, the decision of the committee was not in their favour as they had been unable to demonstrate to the Select Committee that the relevant portion of the arches should be preserved or that they, Whitbreads, should have any form of special protection or, in relation to the arches, any compensation additional to that provided for in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
It is my understanding that the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, is intent on pursuing in debate tonight the same arguments as he deployed on Second Reading. These are founded on the grounds that those who occupy the various arches and have leases from the Railways Board, under which their right to occupy can be terminated in a way which does not provide full compensation under the statutory land compensation code, should be, and ought to be, entitled to some special treatment. It is alleged that the particular circumstances under which those tenants entered into the arrangement to occupy led them into spending money on the basis of a
1202
commercial judgment as to the future use of those arches and how long they could be used for. The tenants now find that they are not going to have as long a term of enjoyment of the accommodation as they originally expected because of the decision of the Railways Board to repossess for the purpose of the scheme which the Bill seeks to authorise.
The terms of the various leases by which the arches are occupied fully entitle British Rail to recover possession of its property, if it is required for operational purposes, by first giving six months' notice and on payment of the compensation so provided.
During the course of the debate on Second Reading I, and indeed the chairman of the committee, explained to your Lordships that if the Bill were to be given a Second Reading it would be referred to a Select Committee, where all matters in dispute would be investigated and where a decision would be made. It is astonishing that out of the 18 petitions lodged, 11 of which were concerned with the consequences of the proposed demolition of the arches, so many of them should have been withdrawn unconditionally by the petitioners without them securing any special terms in their negotiations with the board. It strikes me, and may strike other noble Lords, as singularly strange that with the opportunity having been presented for opposition to be pursued before a Select Committee, not only was that opportunity abandoned at the last minute but also the petitioners' objections are apparently to be rehearsed once again this evening.
I understand it to be the intention of the noble Viscount to press the case on this Third Reading, and I also understand that the occupiers of the arches have every intention of pursuing their opposition in another place, so delaying the passage of the Bill and the ability of the railways board to start work on this imaginative project.
On the one petition which was before the Select Committee that committee discharged its obligations to the full. It produced a decision which is clearly relevant to all those who claim that they will be adversely affected by the repossession of the arches which they occupy. Those tenants, on whose behalf I understand the noble Viscount will be speaking, entered into freely negotiated leases containing clauses providing fur their early determination in certain circumstances which have now come about. All those tenants must have been aware of the possibility of their leases being determined prematurely and they took possession of their premises in the full knowledge of the compensation which would in that event be payable.
With that possibility now becoming a reality, they seek in my view to persuade Parliament to renegotiate the terms of their tenancies. Why should Parliament intervene to rescue tenants when their commercial judgment of the risk freely taken has been shown to be flawed? Nothing which has happend since we debated the subject on 18th March has in any way led me or British Rail to feel that there has been any alteration of circumstances to justify a change of attitude by the board or by Parliament. The case is quite the contrary. The decision of the Select Committee has indicated that the attitude and

1203
policy adopted by the board is the correct one and I shall be doing this House no service if I were now to do more than commend to your Lordships the words spoken by me on Second Reading. I hope that your Lordships will now endorse those words by allowing the Bill a Third Reading tonight. I therefore commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time—(Lord Marshall of Leeds.)
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Sidmouth: My Lords, as a member of the Select Committee I have nothing to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, has said on the question of compensation and the objections that have been raised. They were listened to most patiently and ably by the chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and the other members of the committee, and we were completely satisfied that the case had not been made.
My main purpose in speaking is to raise in general terms two points on the scheme which lies behind the Bill. It will be common knowledge that British Rail has recently increased its share of the daily commuter traffic coming into London at the expense of road-borne traffic, principally cars. Some figures were published recently which showed that to be the case.
I have no doubt at all that the scheme will enhance that process which all of us feel is very necessary in view of the traffic conditions in London. It will provide an access by rail both from North and South of the city which will go virtually direct into the City of London or into a new station very close to it. That will provide good and easy access to a large number of places of work. I have no doubt at all that it will increase the process of people abandoning their cars and coming into London by rail.
Having said that, it is right to point out that this link across the City of London is a rather unique facility. As is well known, the railways developed in private hands and came into London from different quarters. All the railway companies built their terminals in London, and even Brunel failed to realise that eventually the network would grow and that an interchange between the systems would be required. At the end of the day he had to alter his gauge to meet that of the others.
However that same situation applies in other capital cities in Europe and in the circumstances which are now arising the lack of a direct route through the city for through traffic is becoming a relevant factor. Indeed the Bill which we have just passed in this House—the Channel Tunnel Bill—will in my view create just such necessary conditions.
In debating that Bill we heard a great deal about the need to overcome the North/South divide. In practical terms that comes down to allowing the free-est possible access for trains, both passenger and freight. I emphasise freight because that has emerged as being even more important than passenger traffic in general financial terms in the traffic going to and from the Channel Tunnel.
British Rail in its wisdom has felt that it would not be justified and it would cost too much to bring this
1204
link up to a gauge and to a standard of operating which would allow Channel Tunnel traffic to pass through London. British Rail is justified in making that point at this stage as on the traffic forecasts which have been made it will undoubtedly be able to manage with the rather less useful facilities it has going round via Olympia. However I feel that that traffic, particularly the freight traffic, has been underestimated. Only last night a report commissioned by Transport 2000 was published which gave some very interesting figures of potential freight traffic as well as the traffic which will naturally come to the railways if they simply do nothing further about the link or continue to operate with their existing technology.
The report gave details also of potential traffic that would accrue if rather more advanced technologies were developed. Approximately three times as much freight traffic could accrue if these methods of working were adopted. They will obviously be considered by British Rail in the six-year period, which, I emphasise, is none too long for doing the kind of work that is necessary. I refer to combined transport operations, which are quite common on the Continent and not yet common here because the conditions do not at present exist.
One interesting figure in the report is that 40 per cent. of the road traffic originating in this country—imports and exports to the Continent—travels more than 800 kilometres and 21 per cent. travels over 1600 kilometres. This is an extraordinarily long haul. That level of traffic must be well within the grasp of British Rail if it takes a forward-looking attitude. I refer not only to its technology—it will need a certain amount of improvements and new methods of working—but particularly to its rating policy. As is well known, railways can make a very aggressive attack on long-range traffic of that order and should be able to capture it.
On the technical side I think that it will eventually become clear that British Rail must try to get a route from Folkestone via London to the North that has been brought up to a better standard, one more comparable to the continental loading gauge, so that at least traffic can be channelled to and from the North. At that point the link through Snow Hill tunnel, which could give good interchange facilities to the east and west coast mainline, should be looked at again to ensure that the divide between North and South at least is bridged in that way.
6.32 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Leeds, said that I intended to press my objections. I hope that no one was led to believe by that that I intended to divide the House. I have never given that impression, no one has asked me that and it would be improper for me to do so. The noble Lord also told the House and me what kind of speech I was going to make, and that I would repeat the arguments of Second Reading. Again, that is not the case, as will be seen. I hope to make a constructive speech based on what has happened since Second Reading and on information that emerged in Committee.

1205
It is proper for someone like me to speak on Third Reading. This time last week, on Third Reading of a private Bill, the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill, we had a very good debate which went on for two hours with about 10 speakers. It was most productive. We also had an interesting speech just now from the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth. I hope that the House will take my speech in the spirit in which it is delivered.
To make my position clear, as I stated on Second Reading, I am concerned with a group of arch-holders under a line being redeveloped. I am a friend of one who uses three of these large arches as a restaurant with snooker tables. I give now my own interpretation and understanding of the present situation.
The group of arch-holders whose side of the case I am trying to expound are running their businesses on a minute scale compared to the might and muscle of British Rail. They have nothing approaching the back-up resources and expertise of British Rail. It is not surprising that they do not choose to step into the ring with British Rail at every possible opportunity.
At one time the intention was to argue their petition upstairs before the Select Committee of your Lordships but, as events unfolded, a perfectly proper decision was taken to withdraw the petition. One main reason was the prospective cost. I personally was rather astounded at the likely cost of appearing in this way properly represented before your Lordships' Committee. It seems a reasonable decision to await the outcome of a petition submitted to Messrs Whitbreads, which had similar although, I stress, not identical elements to those of the arch-holders with whom I am concerned. Whitbreads, unlike my friend, is an example of a large firm which would not have to think twice about the cost of matching legally the big guns of British Rail.
When we see on the Order Paper of our House a private Bill with the words "British Rail" in the title, we might think it fair to assume that this was British Rail trying to rationalise, to tidy up or to improve small parts of its network. If one looked at the more detailed preamble in the case of this Bill, one might still hold that belief. However, by far the largest part of the Bill is concerned with property development—over £450 million-worth of it in the neighbourhood of Blackfriars and Holborn Viaduct stations. I have it on the highest authority in a letter that I shall mention later written by the chairman of British Rail himself that,
"the development is in effect speculative".
That is the nature of the vessel that is sailing before us named so disarmingly and simply "British Railways (London) Bill."
Parliament is entitled to look very closely at what it contains. I shall try to avoid going into too much detail but shall deal mainly with matters that have come to light since Second Reading. I have three main points to make. They are all concerned with the Blackfriars/Holborn Viaduct element. That is where the arches with which I am concerned are sited.
In brief, the problem arises from the fact that a six-month break clause in the leases of the arch-holders has been invoked as a result of the claimed
1206
need for redevelopment by British Rail under the Bill. Investment and goodwill in these businesses, built up over many years, often with the encouragement of British Rail, is likely to evaporate, the compensation offered being minimal, often barely enough to meet redundancy requirements of staff.
The first of my three points centres round the speculative nature of the developments. My estimate on Second Reading was that, out of a total of £400 million, only about £30 million was concerned directly with the British Rail work. I now revise both those figures upwards, the first to a total of about £500 million, of which £40 million is directly for British Rail work. It turns out that almost all that £40 million devoted to British Rail work is to be found from the developers who will then reap the whole gain or, in very unlikely circumstances, loss, whatever the outcome of the scheme.
It follows from that—this is my central point—that the level of compensation paid to arch-holders is directly, that is, 100 per cent., reflected in the level of profit to the developers. British Rail would not gain or lose at all by what compensation is paid. If British Rail can evict all arch-holders with minimum compensation, the consequent gainers will be the developers.
My evidence for this is clearly to be found in a letter written by the chairman of British Rail, Sir Robert Reid, to the right honourable David Howell, who had forwarded the concerns of the constituent, who was also an arch-holder. The letter is dated 15th December 1986, but came to light only after Second Reading of the Bill. Perhaps I may quote two sentences from that letter:
"I turn now to the allegation of 'speculative property development'. As I have explained, this scheme is not being carried out at BR or public expense so that whilst the development is, in effect, speculative, only Rosehaugh Stanhope stand to lose or gain, whatever the outcome of the scheme".
That is my clear evidence from the top that to the extent to which any compensation to arch-holders for their investment and goodwill is kept down the sole beneficiary will be the developer.
The noble Lord, Lord Marshall, quoted some words of mine at Second Reading when I said:
"This Bill provides for what is essentially a private property redevelopment mainly for the benefit of private investors". [Official Report, 18/3/87; col. 1503.]
The noble Lord said:
"That is not so and is seriously denied by British Rail". [Official Report, 18/3/87; col. 1506.]
I leave others to judge the nature of the development.
The extent to which others are able to judge the nature of the development brings me to my second main point. Although this vast development is predicated on British Rail's requirements being funded by a developer, we learnt from what was said in Committee that BR has not reached any written agreement with a developer. Thus it could be maintained that not only is the development speculative but also that this whole Bill is speculative. It is not unreasonable to say to British Rail that no further progress should be made with the Bill until it has a developer firmly committed in writing. In principle, it is still possible that any existing developers involved could withdraw or be forced by

1207
totally other considerations to withdraw. Much of the time spent on the Bill by this House would then be wasted.
My third main point emerges partly from what happened in the committee when the question was raised regarding whether the whole project was developer-led and also what status evidentially should be given to the declared requirements of a developer in absentia. It would seem desirable, when a developer is found and committed in writing on the project, that the promoters should give us an assurance that a senior representative of the developer should be available to give evidence about his intentions, his requirements and his financial forecasts.
Finally, may I repeat that I am in favour of British Rail creatively developing sites such as the Blackfriars-Holborn Viaduct site. I am in favour of that being done as speedily as it properly can be done. As everyone knows, some of the sites have been derelict for far too long. However, I am not in favour of British Rail using its considerable power and muscle to clear such sites of small businesses in haste and handing the benefits of so doing directly to developers.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also approved the general thrust of the Bill and was in favour of development. I hope that he will be sympathetic to the problems of small businesses. In the case of the arches, they are occupied by small businesses with no vast resources or other branches to fall back on. They have generally been encouraged by BR to invest and develop and to serve the locality. I hope that British Rail will consider its position over the summer months and feel able, in a reasonable manner, to offer fair compensation to the arch-holders.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I apologise that I did not have my name down to speak. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for allowing me to do so. I declare an interest in that I shall be in receipt of a pension from British Rail, and I am also a member of the Press Club which will be disenfranchised if this Bill goes through. I know the owner of Duffers, in which the Press Club has premises.
I apologise for not being present at the beginning of this debate and assure the noble Lord that I had no intention of showing any discourtesy. I only wish to say that I fully endorse what the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, has said.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I have only a few remarks to make. The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, has referred to what he regards as my general support of the project. At Second Reading I made it quite clear that I fully agreed with the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Leeds, when he said that this was an imaginative enterprise and an exciting project. There is not the slightest doubt that providing the link from the Midlands to the South-East has the support of everyone, including that of the noble Viscount. When he first began to speak of the development, I thought that he was going to criticise British Rail for linking
1208
with development schemes. I was very pleased, as his speech unfolded, to see that he is not at all critical of the general attitude of British Rail in arranging developments on such sites. Travelling to your Lordships' House, I pass Liverpool Street every day and there is massive development going on there. That is good for British Rail and I hope its finances will be assisted at the end of the day.
The other point that I made at Second Reading was that I hoped that the Select Committee would give general approval to the project (as they have) and I hoped that it would give the most serious consideration to the question of compensation for the persons to be removed from the arches. From what I have heard today it would appear that the committee gave consideration to that matter. However, I believe that I heard the noble Viscount say that the petition was withdrawn.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, the petitioners withdrew to fight another day. There is no direct comparability with the Whitbread case; there was similarity but not direct comparability. It was said that there was a test case, partly of how Whitbreads got on. However, my petitioners did not come to any agreement with the promoters. They are coming back to fight another day.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, if the petition was not before the committee, that places my second point in some difficulty. I wished to ensure that adequate consideration was given by the committee to the problem of compensation. I have great sympathy with the position of the tenants of the arches. We have heard, not only from the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, but also from the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth, as to procedures of the committee. If the whole question is really one of procedure, whereby certain persons find it difficult to meet the cost of coming before the committee, that is another matter entirely. That would have to be dealt with elsewhere.
My first point was that the general project should be approved. However, on my second point it would appear that the onus is on those who withdrew their petition and that removes any criticism I might have made.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it may be helpful at this point if I briefly intervened to restate the Government's view on the Bill. I apologise to noble Lords that my name was missed off the list of speakers.
As my noble friend Lord Davidson said at Second Reading, the Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers sought by the board. It is for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are necessary and justified.
The Department of the Environment has one outstanding point on the Bill in connection with the impact of the development on Export House, 50 Ludgate Hill, on which negotiations are continuing with the promoters. It is hoped to resolve the matter satisfactorily. Those business and other interests which remain dissatisfied with the provisions of the Bill will have a further opportunity to petition against

1209
the Bill in another place. I recommend that the Bill be allowed to proceed.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to my noble friend. Lord Brabazon of Tara, for his statement. I am also obliged to the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth. I believe that the points he raised will he noted by British Rail and I am sure that it will give proper regard to them.
It is true that British Rail has increased its carryings in this particular area, as the noble Viscount said. As I said at Second Reading, the Bill will be welcomed by many of the commuters who pour into the City every day to work. That matter was touched upon by the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth.
I listened very carefully to the case put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, but I could not detect any new matter which appeared in his Third Reading speech compared with his Second Reading speech. Certainly, he advised that Parliament is entitled to look very carefully at what is going into the Bill. It comes a little hard to listen to such a statement when the friends he represents were given every opportunity to explain and plead their case to a Select Committee. Yet of the 18 petitioners no fewer than 17 withdrew unconditionally and rather suddenly without securing any special terms for their withdrawal. In fact they abandoned their petitions.
Noble Lords set up a Select Committee to consider these matters and expect that they will be treated with proper respect by those who have objections to the matters referred to in a particular Bill. However, if the great majority of petitioners unconditionally withdraw and disappear, it comes a little hard to hear today that Parliament is entitled to look very carefully to what is going into the Bill. One might almost say that they have had their opportunity but we know they are taking the opportunity in another place.
I do not wish British Rail to be thought to be guilty of any misleading intention in regard to this Bill or any site which is affected by it. I was quite open a few moments ago when I said that Holborn Viaduct Station would no longer be required, and with the demolition of most of the viaduct there would be a considerable enhancement of the amenities of the locality to the west of St. Paul's and improved potential for the development of an increasingly important area much of which has lain derelict since being destroyed by bombing during the war. Those were my words.
However, I said at Second Reading, and I repeat now, that property development is not the prime reason for the Bill. The prime reason is a matter of operational requirement. The name Whitbread was again canvassed after I had mentioned that point. There is a significant difference in the position of Whitbread in that it was the only freeholder. Of course none of the tenants who were tenants of the arches was a freeholder at all.
The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, spoke first, second and third about compensation. Compensation rules and codes are laid down and British Rail will abide by its obligations under those codes. If the Select Committee had thought it was
1210
being unfair and should offer more, it would have included a recommendation that that should be so. I repeat that I see nothing new in the three matters raised except that they all refer to compensation.
To put the matter very shortly, if anybody takes a lease or a tenancy of an arch from British Rail in all cases they sign a lease or tenancy agreement, one of the provisions of which provides that British Rail can re-possess by giving six months' notice without compensation, if it requires recovery of possession for operational purposes. When you enter into an arrangement of that sort you must be slightly out of your mind if you take a commercial risk to spend a vast amount of money on the arch which you occupy.
At Second Reading I remember that the noble Viscount alleged that a friend of his had spent probably half a million pounds. All I can say is that anyone who does that is in my view committing a grave commercial error. He cannot expect that British Rail will compensate the amount of money he has very unwisely spent. It is a sad case, but he is on six months' notice, no more and no less. It is a matter for commercial judgment. If your commercial judgment is wrong it is a matter for the person who made the mistake. I am sorry to say that.
I am obliged to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who did no more than support the arguments of the noble Viscount on the basis that friendship was one of the arch tenants. I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for the responsible way he treated this matter not only on Third Reading but also on Second Reading. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1987
6.47 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I beg to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved.
The purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, which together provide the basis for the disciplinary arrangements of the three services. The concept of annual parliamentary approval for the special legal position of the serviceman, subject as he is to the constraints of military discipline as well as to the rule of civil law, is a long-established one in British constitutional practice. As your Lordships are aware, every fifth year the opportunity is taken to review in depth the needs of the service disciplinary systems and an Armed Forces Act is passed making such amendments to those systems as are considered necessary. The most recent such Act was passed in 1986.
It is now well established that the procedure under which such Bills are introduced quinquennially, with annual continuation orders in the intervening years, is the right way to ensure that the working of the

1211
service disciplinary Acts is kept under review by Parliament.
This debate gives us the opportunity to discuss matters affecting service discipline and welfare. However, it also provides me with an opportunity to pay wholehearted tribute to the skill and dedication of our Armed Forces underlined this very day by glowing references to their performance during the Falklands conflict in a report from the defence committee of another place. The professionalism of our Armed Forces is founded in part upon a sound disciplinary system, which will be continued by this order. I have deliberately spoken very shortly in introducing this order, but naturally I am very willing to deal with individual points at the end of the short debate.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved. [1st Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, the order provides an opportunity for us to keep under review the annual Army Acts. It enables us to seek a progress report from the Minister. I should like to join with the Minister in the tribute he paid to our forces. We require from our serving men and women that they give us some of the civil liberties that we enjoy as private citizens. They give up some of their civil liberties to protect the civil liberties of the rest of us. In turn we should see that the conditions in the services in which they carry out their activities are fair, reasonable and just.
I want to raise one or two questions tonight and I hope the Minister will be able to provide some answers. One of the problems in the armed forces is morale. It is an integral part of an efficient force and can only be neglected at our peril. In recent years we have seen a 25 per cent. increase in the number of skilled personnel leaving the armed forces, as well as a substantial number of pilots whose training has cost in excess of £3 million. About 70 per cent. of RAF married quarters are regarded as substandard. Those factors are bound to have an effect upon morale. We have had five reports of bullying and malpractice in training establishments, but the Home Secretary has refused to hold a broader inquiry into these tragic circumstances. Junior soldiers are minors and they are a special responsibility of the Army as it is in the position of in loco parentis.
Last year the Select Committee on the armed forces recommended that Queen's Regulations in respect of courts martial be reviewed with particular regard to the right of servicemen and women to be represented at summary proceedings by a friend of the accused. Will the Minister tell us what is happening about the proposal of the Select Committee which recommended that service personnel should have the right to be defended by a senior NCO if the defendant thought that to be appropriate? It is thought that the use of an NCO in these circumstances might afford the court the opportunity to hear someone with more direct experience of the life of other ranks than can be provided by a commissioned officer. It might be difficult to ensure that NCOs are given legal training,
1212
but the Minister should consider whether some NCOs can be used in this way. Will the Minister comment on that matter?
The services have done a great deal of work on the problem of drug abuse. The Army is to subject its soldiers to routine drug tests and a number of pieces of equipment have been purchased. Can the Minister say whether that is working well and, if so, will similar equipment be purchased for the RAF and the Royal Navy? Has the Army carried out any tests yet, and if so, what are the results of those tests? We congratulate the alcohol abuse team of the Royal Navy on its excellent work and we hope that other services will set up similar specialist units. Alcohol abuse is a major problem in our society.
On the question of AIDS, will the Minister say what will be the fate of men or women who have been diagnosed as having AIDS? Will they be discharged or retained as they are in the United States? There is a difference of emphasis and attitude among our allies. Will the Minister say what his attitude is to the problem?
Our object in raising these matters is to recognise the high standards maintained by our armed forces and to ensure that those standards continue to be maintained. As I have said, we recognise that we demand a loss of civil liberties from our voluntary forces so that our own civil liberties and freedoms can be maintained and protected. That is why I raise these points here tonight and hope that we can have some satisfactory replies from the Minister.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that response to my proposal in respect of this order. I shall deal with some of the points raised by the noble Lord, but I fear that I may be unable to deal with them all now. I shall very happily write to the noble Lord with further information where I can.
On the first point that the noble Lord raised about morale in the armed forces, I can tell him that morale remains high. One of the indications of morale is, of course, the rate of applications by people to leave the services. I can tell the noble Lord that the rate is not at a level which I regard as worrying. Indeed, there have been some recent signs that the rate is edging downwards and naturally that is very much to be welcomed.
Having said that, some individuals will always wish to terminate their service earlier than would normally be the case, for whatever reason. Clearly, that is very much to be regretted. One of the reasons often cited is so-called turbulence, where a man may be posted from one place to another at comparatively short notice. That is naturally disturbing and unsettling for his family. I fear that is a feature of service life, whatever arrangements one seeks to make. Naturally, we do not welcome any more PVR cases, as they are called, than there have to be. We shall certainly do everything we can to keep the rate to the minimum. As I have said, it now appears to be edging down slightly. We do what we can to help to solve the turbulence problem; for example, by providing what are called harmony warrants and by lengthening the tours of servicemen in a particular

1213
post, thus reducing the necessity for frequent family moves.
The noble Lord also referred to AIDS. With the growing evidence of the threat posed by AIDS we recognise that members of the armed forces are no less at risk than other members of the community. As a result, an intensive and thorough programme of education and prevention is pursued by the services. An MOD working party including medical, legal service and policy staffs was established in March 1986. Its main function is to make proposals for preventive education, publicity and personnel policy aspects of AIDS. As a matter of urgency, it first concentrated on preventive education and publicity. It recommended the wide distribution of posters to service units to be prominently displayed; the wide distribution of the Health Education Council booklet; comprehensive briefing by medical staffs of units serving or about to be deployed overseas; and the incorporation of AIDS warnings into all drug education briefings.
I hope the noble Lord will be ready to accept that we are not standing idly by in the face of this problem, and that we are doing as much as we possibly can to see that it is kept under control so far as concerns the armed forces.
The noble Lord raised a couple of other points, particularly about he composition of courts martial and the possibility of non-commissioned officers appearing before courts martial on behalf of accused persons. We discussed this matter during the passage last year of the Armed Forces Bill, as it then was. If there is anything further that I can add to what I said during that time I shall certainly write to the noble Lord.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, are the Government accepting the recommendations of the report?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my recollection is that we have not yet reached a conclusion on the matter, but perhaps I might be allowed to take further advice and write to the noble Lord. My recollection might be at fault.
I think that I have dealt with the main points that were raised by the noble Lord. I shall carefully study what he said and I shall respond to him more fully in writing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
6.58 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 which was laid before your Lordships' House on 7th May this year be approved. Your Lordships may be aware that the order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
1214
The order provides the balance of the money necessary in this financial year for the services provided by Northern Ireland departments and certain other public bodies. On 24th February this year your Lordships approved a total of £1,483 million as a "sum on account". Today I come before your Lordships to seek the balance of £1,945 million and this makes a total estimate for 1987–88—which is this financial year—of £3,428 million. The estimates volume, which gives full details of the projected expenditure, is available in the Printed Paper Office and I have no doubt that your Lordships will have obtained all the necessary copies.
The order also appropriates some £115,000 to cover excess expenditure in the 1985–86 financial year by the Department of the Environment. That excess Vote has been examined by the Public Accounts Committee, which I am pleased to report has raised no objection to it being voted. Details of the excess expenditure are set out in the statement of excess pamphlet, which is also available from the Printed Paper Office.
I shall start with one or two words about the general economic position in Northern Ireland. The latest economic indicators provide some grounds for encouragement. The United Kingdom as a whole is about to embark on its seventh year of continuous economic growth. Output of growth in the Province has responded to growth at national level with total industrial production now within 8 per cent. of its 1980 level. Manufacturing production has now almost recovered to its 1980 level, while construction industry output is now 31 per cent. higher than that recorded at the same time last year. Future prospects are brighter.
As my right honourable friend the Chancellor recently announced in his Financial Statement and Budget Report, growth this year is expected to be higher than in 1986. The unemployment picture in the Province remains somewhat uncertain. Nevertheless, I am encouraged by the fact that there has been some fall in the underlying numbers of unemployed during 1987. Seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen by an average of 300 per month over the past six months. Although April and May this year showed a slight increase in the underlying numbers unemployed, I am glad to say that the figures for June, announced today, show a drop in the headline total and in the seasonally adjusted number. The number of people without a job is lower than at the same time a year ago.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to some changes in the structure and presentation of the Estimates. The Department of Finance and Personnel has taken the trouble to review the structure of Northern Ireland Estimates with a view to presenting a much clearer relationship between the Government's published public expenditure plans and the Estimates which are presented to your Lordships'. Table 2.2 of page 6 of the Estimates volume illustrates what has been achieved in the relationship between public expenditure plans and the Estimates. We have also taken action to improve the clarity of the estimates by removing unnecessary clutter. To that end, some small Votes have been amalgamated and others restructured to reflect as far

1215
as possible, departmental management structures. There will be some further improvements next year. I hope that your Lordships will agree that we have made a useful start.
I turn to the opening Votes in the Estimates. I shall start at page 28. It covers the provision for my department, the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. The Department of Agriculture's Vote 1 provides for expenditure in Northern Ireland on measures of national agriculture and fisheries support which apply throughout the United Kingdom. That expenditure of some £42 million was formerly voted as part of the Supply Estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. With effect from 1st April this year accounting responsibility was transferred to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland under the Agriculture and Fisheries (Financial Assistance) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. That handover of responsibility does not affect the level of public expenditure on various measures. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, with his great interest in agriculture, will accept that this is a technical change. I shall have more to say about it later.
The largest element within that Vote, which accounts for about £30 million in Section B, is for structural improvements to the agricultural industry by way of various capital and other grants. Approximately £12 million in Section C is for support for agriculture in special areas through, for instance, headage payments on hill cattle and sheep.
The Department of Agriculture's Vote 2 on page 33 seeks total provision of some £81 million; of that, £35 million in Section A is for agricultural, scientific and veterinary services. The balance is made up of three elements: about £10 million in Section B for various agricultural support measures; £23 million in Section C on land and resources, which in the main cover expenditure on drainage and the forest service; and in Section D there is nearly £12 million for administrative services including accommodation.
Your Lordships will then find the Estimates for the Department of Economic Development and the Industrial Development Board, which are covered by the Department of Economic Development Votes 1 and 2. Under Vote 1 (page 42) industrial support and regeneration, the main provision sought is for some £12 million. That is to fund the Industrial Development Board's factory building and estate development work.
Industrial infrastructure in Northern Ireland has rightly a key role to play not only in attracting investment from overseas but in providing for the expansion of existing industry. In addition, under subhead C1 on page 43 almost £4 million has been earmarked for public relations and advertising campaigns. That has the proper aim of promoting Northern Ireland as a good investment location. In Vote 2 Section A (page 45) over £78 million is being provided for selective assistance to industry, including support for research and development work.
Vote 3 of the Department of Economic Development relates to miscellaneous support services. The details can be found on pages 48 to 50.
1216
About £93 million is sought. Of that, £42·6 million has been earmarked for Harland and Wolff for areas such as trading operations, excluding of course the auxiliary oiler and replenishment contract. That is a large Harland and Wolff contract. Within that £42·6 million, funds are also provided for the recently announced redundancies and expenditure incurred by Harland and Wolff Enterprises. That company was set up to provide practical advice towards retraining and redeployment opportunities for Harland and Wolff's redundant workers. Of the balance, £21·2 million has been allocated to local enterprise; £18·2 million for standard capital grants and £7·6 million for Short's to provide grant assistance for a number of major aerospace projects. Those figures are on pages 49 and 50.
Under Vote 5 (page 55) of the Department of Economic Development a net total of £108 million is sought. A significant proportion of those resources, some £30·7 million is for the youth training programme. In addition on page 58, £29·5 million is sought for the action for community employment programme which will provide some 6,200 jobs in this financial year.
Page 72 covers a new department, Vote 1, in the Department of the Environment. Here we seek a total provision of £136·4 million for the roads service budget. This includes the operation and the maintenance of the road system in the Province.
Vote 2 in the Department of Environment covers housing. Housing remains the Government's top social and environmental priority following law and order and industrial development. I wish to stress to noble Lords that the public expenditure allocation to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, together with rental income and capital receipts totalling some £502 million, will be sufficient to finance the gross expenditure plans for 1987–88 as proposed by the Housing Executive in its 1986 housing strategy review. In addition, there will be £41 million for Northern Ireland housing associations. That is broadly in line with the level of spending last year.
The Housing Executive's plans for 1987–88 will include a programme of new housebuilding starts in line with last year and increased expenditure on the maintenance and improvement of the public sector housing stock. The provision of over £48 million on renovation grants for private dwellings in Section B of Vote 2 of the Department of the Environment, on page 81, reflects the continuing efforts being made to target these resources on those properties and households in greatest need.
I now come to Vote 3 of the Department of the Environment on page 85. This covers the services which deal with both water and sewerage. Of the total provision sought of £86·5 million, some £36 million is for operational and maintenance purposes and about £27 million is for new construction works, including the servicing of new housing. The Department of the Environment is also engaged on a long-term programme of improvements to sewage facilities in the greater Belfast area which will in time, we hope, improve the quality of the River Lagan.
Turning to education, the five votes covering the expenditure of the Department of Education seek a provision of approximately £743 million. This level

1217
of spending reflects the priority which the Government continue to give to the needs of Northern Ireland schools in terms of both teaching and other resources. Some 40 per cent. of the total relates to the payment of school teachers' salaries. I am pleased to say that the agreement was reached on 18th May of this year at the Northern Ireland negotiating committee on pay and conditions of service for school teachers in Northern Ireland. The agreement is fully in accord with Government policy but there are minor differences in detail from the arrangements in England and Wales to reflect existing differences between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Overall teacher numbers in primary and secondary schools will be increased by 150 posts for the 1987–88 school year above the numbers required to maintain the existing pupil to teacher ratio. There will also be some 200 teachers for special care schools, reflecting the transfer of responsibility for the education of mentally handicapped children from the Department of Health and Social Services to the Department of Education which took place on 1st April this year. The estimates for this department also provide for total capital expenditure in excess of £47 million. This will provide for a substantial programme of new building projects together with provision for ongoing major works, minor works and equipment. There are a total of 28 new major works which will be released in 1987–88, and this will be at an overall cost of £26 million. Twenty-four of these are schools projects which cost £21 million.
Vote 2 in the Department of Education, on pages 110 and 114, covers higher and further education. This vote provides continued funding of the two Northern Ireland universities on the principle of parity with comparable institutions in Great Britain. Vote 3, again for the Department of Education, on pages 115 to 119, makes provision for enhanced spending by the museums on purchases and on conservation. There is also increased aid for the Arts Council and for the establishment of a business sponsorship incentive scheme for the arts. I stress to your Lordships that this is to be a national scheme. Nevertheless, there is some provision in our votes this evening.
On pages 120 to 123, in Vote 4 of the Department of Education, the recurrent grant of £231·5 million to area boards out of which are met the running costs of controlled and maintained schools represents an increase of almost 5 per cent. above last year's initial allocations to boards.
Turning to health and social services, we find a total of £715 million is sought in Vote 1 on page 128. This vote is sought to maintain and further improve Northern Ireland's health and personal social services. The largest single element within this total is the Health and Social Services Boards' revenue expenditure which we estimate at £583 million. This is about 6 per cent. more than the equivalent figure for last year.
Perhaps I may rush—if that is the word—to page 140 of the estimates volume. In Vote 3 of the Department of Health and Social Services we find that £65.3 million is required to meet the cost of administration and miscellaneous services in the
1218
Department of Health and Social Services. Finally, in the social security programme, a total of £785·1 million is required in Vote 4, of which £739·7 million is required to meet payments of non-contributory and family benefits.
I have sought to take your Lordships through the estimates volume. Noble Lords have been very patient in bearing with me while I tried to point out the most illuminating figures that we felt should be presented to your Lordships this evening. I have endeavoured to cover the main features of the draft order that we feel to be important. I certainly look forward to listening to all the remarks which noble Lords may wish to make. I commend the draft order to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th May be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
7.20 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, a week ago tonight in the debate on the renewal of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 I referred to a paragraph relating to Northern Ireland in the Queen's Speech. Unlike the previous speeches, it contained no commitment to tackle unemployment and the economic difficulties of the Province which remains the poorest region in the United Kingdom with very high unemployment even though it is slightly lower than a year ago.
One has listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. However, it appears to me that his judgment was summed up in his statement that the position remains somewhat uncertain. It seems to me that the Government have nothing new to offer the Province or the unemployed of Northern Ireland.
I notice that the Minister did not refer to the pathfinder interim report which was mentioned by one of his colleagues in another place a week ago. I have not seen the report. It is not available in our Library. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, could arrange for a copy to be sent at an early date at least to those of us in your Lordships' House who usually participate in Northern Ireland debates. I should be grateful for the report because, from the description given in another place, it may be testimony that the Government are adopting a fresh approach to the problems of the Province and to the measures which have been adopted in the past. It may be too early to be sure of that but at least the Government, if we place reliance on the pathfinder report, are questioning certain basic assumptions which they have taken for granted for years. If that is correct then the report may be an important step in the right direction.
The economy apart, if the Government are to make life easier for a significant number of people in Northern Ireland there are sectors which need to be reinforced. There are three such sectors—health, education and housing. The tenure of life depends very much upon those three sectors. I was particularly pleased that the Minister acknowledged the important role of housing and the health service in the Province. The housing executive has been very much under attack. I should make it clear that we on these Benches acknowledge the achievements of the housing executive. Yet its accounts for the year ended 31st March 1986 together with the observations of

1219
the local government auditor cause some concern. There have been substantial write-offs of rent arrears, district heating arrears and home loan repayment arrears. There have been difficulties in processing housing benefit claims while at the same time one of the divisions remained overmanned for far too long. Then there is the remarkable case of the Microfilm Commercial Company which was paid for its services at twice the rate of its estimate.
I have read the response published by the housing executive. It is a helpful response and places one or two of the items in the auditors' report in their historical perspective. We note that some remedial action is in hand. We also note, in fairness to the executive, that there may be technical difficulties of a legal nature beyond the control of the executive in enforcing arrears repayment. However, given the report of the auditor, what view do the Government take of the local government auditor's report and of the housing executive's response to it? Are they satisfied that the executive is implementing the necessary corrective procedures to meet the deficiencies identified in the auditor's report.
I now wish to turn to the education sector, or to part of the education sector, in particular to the integrated schools which appear to be so promising. It is all very well and very easy to make speeches full of rhetoric about the need for reconciliation in Northern Ireland but rhetoric achieves very little unless we give practical encouragement and support to people who, midst all the tensions, are seeking to work together to realise the vision of reconciliation. Against that background the integrated schools, as yet few in number, are full of promise. We must acknowledge that two Members of your Lordships' House—my noble friend Lord Blease and the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath—have been closely associated with the principle of integrated education.
In the integrated schools in Northern Ireland pupils from Catholic and Prostestant homes alike in approximately equal numbers are educated together. In that kind of school parents drawn from different backgrounds are brought together. They work in parent/teacher associations or in school friends' associations to build a school with a sensitivity, a school which succeeds in cutting across issues with a history of centuries. Indeed, the willingness of parents drawn from different backgrounds to give their kids access to integrated education is at least a token of the capacity for co-operation and compromise. These integrated schools are beginning to evolve.
I understand that the first such school was Lagan college which was opened six years ago with 28 pupils. It can be very proud of its achievements. In September there will be 500 pupils on its roll. It is now hard at work raising £700,000 for new school buildings. That college has led the way. I understand that by next September there will be six other integrated schools in the Province but only two will enjoy grant-aided status, which qualifies them to receive some public funding. The remaining four will be financed entirely by parents and friends of the schools, friends at home and abroad, on the
1220
continent of Europe and in the United States of America.
One immediate problem—but only one out of a number—is presented by Hazelwood College which opened with 17 pupils in September 1985. By the end of last month it had 75 pupils. By next September it will have 150 pupils. I am told that the school applied for grant-aided status last March and although the new term is only six weeks away it is still awaiting the department's decision. Surely parents, staff and pupils should know by now what financial assistance they can expect to receive from the Government. I appreciate that the Government have not as yet been able to take the lead with integrated schools. We understand their difficulties. The lead is coming from parents who are demanding integrated education. Lagan college has demonstrated by now that the integrated school is well past the experimental stage. These schools must be worth encouraging. We therefore urge the department to expedite decisions not merely on the Hazelwood college application but on all other applications from integrated schools that are on the education Minister's desk.
There is another area where we believe we can perceive a meeting of traditions and where recognition and encouragement by the Northern Ireland Office would be helpful. I refer to the numerous women's groups which have emerged amidst the tensions and explosions during the last 10 years. Between them they cover a wide range of issues. There are many such groups such as the Women's Centre for Advice and Information; the Falls Women's Centre; the Women's Education Project; the Rape Crisis Centre; and the Women's Committee of the Northern Ireland TUC.
Some of those organisations have received small financial help from such bodies as the Belfast City Council, the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, the Carnegie Trust, the Rowntree Trust, and one or two of the banks. Those groups have at least three things in common. They have strong roots in their local communities; they cut across sections and across classes; and they have shown, given one or two difficulties, that their members can work together. So here again we see an endorsement of the principle of co-operation and reconciliation which must be good for Northern Ireland.
We should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, could persuade his ministerial colleagues—if they require persuasion—to look with sympathy at these organisations, assist with resources if resources are required, and ensure that there is a framework, possibly within the terms of the Social Need Order 1986, within which they can co-operate with the relevant public bodies.
The appropriation order before the House deals with billions of pounds, and we have heard immense detail from the Minister, and of course he was right to parade the detail before us. To invest but a minute portion of this money in the integrated schools movement, in the women's groups, and other voluntary organisations which cut across sections, or seek to cut across sections and issues, could bear fruit.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. Before going on to put my questions perhaps I may be allowed to make some general comments. There are many good, intelligent people in Northern Ireland but, unfortunately, a proportion are intransigent, stupid and even positively evil. Whatever else one might think about the result of the recent general election, many can accept that it is a good thing that the Unionists cannot exert a disproportionate influence in a hung Parliament and that the Government are not going back on the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
For all but such as the misguided Mr. Ken Livingstone the IRA is beyond the pale, and I believe some Unionists also have much to answer for. I hope in any negotiations that may now take place that, while they may be critical of the Government, they will understand that a great proportion of the British public can be critical of them. The noble Lord, Lord Moyola, may later wish to refute this.
Direct rule cannot be a good, permanent system for long-term government, and this was made clear in the debate last Thursday. Orders in Council involve a process that is often frustrating. Normally when the 1,100 Peers not interested in the Province have gone home a small group of about eight dedicated Peers meet in this Chamber to discuss Ulster affairs, sometimes joined by a couple of Peers who have dined too well and do not know quite where they are or why, and the business proceeds.
I wrote this down, but something seems to have changed. I said, "The hoods are on the television cameras", which they normally are, "the lights are dim, the press reporters have gone home, and the general feeling of the public is one of disinterest". Things seem to have changed tonight.
Considerable effort, however, goes into the debate despite the fact that what we do seems little to matter. In the time I have been involved I think it is true to say that we have not changed a single order by one word or one comma. These orders are often as lengthy and complicated as Acts and they range from electricity to agriculture to licensing, and over the whole field of life in the Province. But despite the apparent futility of much that we do I think that the mere effort is appreciated over the water, and I have been very grateful for the cross-party feeling of comradeship among the small faithful band of speakers involved.
The present system of rule from Westminster is far from perfect, particularly when Unionist MPs chose to cut themselves off from the proceedings. But when people in Ulster can more widely accept the value of compassion, conciliation and co-operation things will proceed apace. Until then they bring on themselves a loss of control of their own affairs that makes little sense and places an undue burden here.
Against the view widely held on the mainland I believe there are grounds for cautious hope. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, in a moving speech on the third day of the debate on the Address had much to say about this. Perhaps I may be allowed to repeat his closing words in col. 193 of Hansard 30th June. He said:
1222
"There can be no doubt that a commitment to Northern Ireland by the Government is going to be difficult to fulfil. I have tried in my speech to indicate that there are positive signs of change and hope. From this side of the House we wish the Government success in the stated aims concerning Northern Ireland".
We on these Benches would like to be associated with that.
Again the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, another Peer who knows the problems from personal experience, said on 9th July at col. 813 of Hansard, if he will bear with me:
"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".
It will need great patience, but I recall the words of the poet:
"Say not the struggle naught availeth, the Labour and the wounds are vain".
In the long term, and indeed it may be a very long term, good will triumph over evil.
I now turn to the questions of which I have given the noble Lord, Lord Lye11, notice. First, can the Government confirm what they subscribed to the organisation Co-operation North last year, and now state what they propose to contribute this year? I put down a Written Question on this latter point earlier this year but the reply was entirely non-committal. I would only say here that spokesmen for the organisation made a considerable impression on a meeting of Peers last year and that the encouragement of cross-border meetings seems to be money well spent if the climate of opinion is thus improved.
On the order itself I have just a few questions. Under the heading Department of Economic Development, Vote 3, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, touched on this, how much of this sum is going to Harland and Wolff—I was not quite clear—and how many ships does the yard have on its stocks? On Vote 4 can the Minister give any details of the state of tourism in the province at the present time and any proposal for encouraging and improving it.
Under the heading Department of the Environment, Vote 2, I was going to ask the Minister to give details of what is meant by "housing services" but I think he dealt with this. The last question was under Department of Health and Social Services, Vote 4. Can the Minister give any details as to whether demand for the severe disablement allowance is particularly high in the Province due to terrorist activity? With those few comments and questions we of course accept this order.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to start by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, because I shall be unable to stay for the further two orders on the registration of clubs and licensing. They are pretty controversial subjects, but if it is any consolation to him, I thought on reading the papers about them earlier this year that the Government have probably got the balance about right.
I go on to support and welcome every single word that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said from his

1223
Front Bench on integrated education. It just so happened today that I was having lunch with somebody living near the new town of Craigavon, where parents are once again coming forward and demanding an integrated secondary school, and I very much hope that they obtain it.
This evening I should like to confine my remarks to discussing present and future policy on Action for Community Employment, better known as the ACE scheme, together with implications for government departments, voluntary bodies and community relations. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, mentioned this scheme in his speech and reminded us that over 6,000 jobs depend on it and that they cost £25 million a year. We are talking of something quite major. More people are employed under this scheme than currently work in Harland and Wolff shipyard and the number is only a little less than those currently working at Short Brothers.
There are some 700 ACE sponsors, which are voluntary or community groups acting as agents or employers on behalf of the Government. Those sponsors organise into the Northern Ireland Federation of ACE Sponsors, known as NIFAS, with an office in Belfast. To qualify for employment under ACE a person must have been unemployed for one year or more. The job that he is given will last for only one year. The scheme has made a modest impact on the number of long-term unemployed people. However, it has been of benefit in the worst black-spots of unemployment, where male unemployment can easily exceed 50 per cent. The scheme is valuable because it gives local communities a certain degree of initiative and control over their own affairs which they might not otherwise have. They may therefore feel less alienated and less powerless.
We need to see the scheme against the background of social and economic conditions in Northern Ireland. That subject was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. In March 1987, nearly 127,000 people were registered as unemployed; that is, 18.7 per cent. of the working population. Unfortunately, about half those people fall into the category of long-term unemployed and this year half the total were living in Greater Belfast. That is bad enough, but even the earnings of those in work tend to be lower than those in the rest of the United Kingdom, while fuel costs are distinctly higher. In 1985 the Greater Belfast household survey showed that 39 per cent. of the housing stock still needed major repairs, and the survey estimated that one-third of the heads of households had incomes below £60 a week.
These facts indicate a major problem of poverty and dereliction, made worse by cuts and tight budgets in health and social services. This situation, combined with high unemployment, with its obvious incentives to political violence, crime and addictions of every kind, has driven voluntary bodies and ACE sponsors to grasp at whatever government help may be available. They see urgent needs and feel compelled to meet them as best they can.
What then are the drawbacks to ACE? By itself it is not a sufficient response to long-term
1224
unemployment. Secondly, many ACE workers revert to unemployment when their year is up. By now I know a certain number of ACE sponsors and in the western part of the Province I have seen a huge playing field and community hall built almost entirely through ACE. All the sponsors tell me that the one-year period is insufficient because the worker's contract ends just when he or she begins to be really useful. In my view, a two-year ACE would be more than twice as effective and it would allow for built-in education and training, as is now the case with the two-year youth training programme in England. A two-year ACE would also allow for proper induction and better continuity of experience for the younger workers. It should be backed by leaving certificates giving details of the work done and the training given.
Already the Government have recognised the need for a transition to permanent or self-employment by providing a pilot scheme for ACE enterprise. This allows ACE workers to begin self-employment during the last months of their year and then to qualify for an enterprise allowance. Unfortunately, this scheme now has only 100 places available. It must be recognised that ACE presents a mild threat to some existing jobs, especially in the environmental and social services; for example, to home helps and other ancillary workers. One therefore understands the anxieties of some trade unions.
It is important that there should be clear definitions of what kind of work is suitable for ACE and what is not. I suggest that any deferrable work is suitable for ACE; for example, local improvements to the landscape or the street scene, or decorating and gardening for the elderly and frail. On the other hand, jobs demanding exactitude and continuity, especially where long-term human relationships are concerned, are more suitable to either unpaid long-term volunteers or permanently employed staff. This qualitative distinction should be made even if, as I hope, ACE is extended to a two-year period.
A further anomaly occurs because it is the Department of Economic Development which administers the scheme, although much of its activity lies in social and welfare work. This is so at a time when the Department of Health and Social Services has committed itself in its regional strategic plan to community care and to the switching of some resources from institutions to the local communities. I do not know to what extent, if at all, the Department of Agriculture is involved. I suspect that rural ACEs may be needed just as much as urban ones.
However, I ask the Minister to bring the whole matter to the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I should like him to do so under at least three headings. First, there is the aspect of governmental organisation and departmental responsibilities. I have already mentioned the Department of Economic Development and LEDU, if small businesses emerge, together with the Department of Health and Social Services. There is also the Department of Education in Northern Ireland which is responsible for community relations and adult education and which is able to make grants of 75 per cent. to local authorities. There is the further possibility of drawing in additional funds from the

1225
EC via the regional and social programmes, and the special measures to combat poverty. Only the Secretary of State can have sufficient detachment to be able to harmonise the special interests of the various departments.
Secondly, there is the question of the best way in which to support and encourage the vital innovative and essential work of voluntary bodies. There is a circle that somehow or other needs to be squared. How does one ensure adequate public accountability—as, for example, in the case of housing associations, which I know of old in this country—without throttling initiative and flexibility by imposing over-bureaucratic control?
Finally, I must mention the dimension of community relations which, as always, is so important in Northern Ireland. ACE has potential (which is probably not yet fully developed) for improving public relations. Cross-community work should be more encouraged, and whenever possible activities should be arranged on an inter-community basis so as to build up the middle ground of consent. There is ample precedent for this. For example, in children's holiday schemes in social welfare and in integrated education at all levels. It is, nevertheless, a dimension which I ask the Secretary of State to look at personally and in depth since the ways in which government departments and local authorities carry out their normal day-to-day functions inevitably affects community perceptions and relationships.
In considering these matters, I ask the Secretary of State to study with care the recent report on improving community relations by Hugh Frazer and Marie Fitzduff. That was produced by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. I first mentioned this matter in the debate on the loyal Address on the 30th June (at col. 196 of Hansard) and I am sure it is a matter to which we shall have to come back on future occasions.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Moyola: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the appropriation order. I apologise to him in advance for the fact that I have not been able to give him notice of what I am about to say. I hope and believe he will find it to be in such general terms that it will not set him a problem, and I will certainly excuse him if I get no reply.
I do not know if this is an appropriate moment to raise this matter—it is of course an old chestnut—but following the appropriation order we have two more quite lengthy orders tonight. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether there is any hope that legislation to do with Northern Ireland can be dealt with in the same way as for the rest of the kingdom. It really does seem idiotic to come over from Northern Ireland to discuss these various orders, knowing full well that one has no opportunity to amend or alter them in any way. I should like to say to the noble Lord that I hope he will be able to give me some hope that there is going to be a change and that Northern Ireland can he legislated for in exactly the same way as the rest of the kingdom.
I want to touch on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I am afraid I cannot like it any better as the months go
1226
on; I find great difficulty in seeing what good it does. In fact, I honestly feel that if anything it has the reverse effect. I was somewhat astonished by the optimism by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, over the economic situation of Northern Ireland. I am bound to say that while I in no way would attempt to dispute his figures or to suggest that they are wrong, I am bound to say that I cannot at all share his optimism. Quite a lot of my pessimism must be blamed on the violence which has ensued as a direct result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It has created not only violence but a feeling of political instability. It has increased instability even more because of the talk, however wild it may be, that we now hear of independence.
I am bound to say to the noble Lord that it is worth wondering—though one cannot answer these questions—how many jobs have been lost as potential employers have decided not to come to Northern Ireland and have decided that it is no place to be. We can ask how many business expansions have not taken place because people do not want to invest in the country because of what is going on. For the same reason, how many houses remain unsold? How many house agents are no longer accepting houses on their books because they cannot get rid of them, simply because people are in a state of misery over the way things are going in Northern Ireland? We may just as well ask how many people have left the Province. I know lots who have and I do not doubt that many of my colleagues in Northern Ireland know just as many. How many businesses have been hit by the fact that many shops no longer keep the same stocks as they used to? I know from my own experience, for example, that when I want agricultural equipment I very often have to go miles to find it whereas a few years ago I would have got it in my own area.
I cannot see at the moment, the way things are, that there is any incentive for people to want to come to Northern Ireland to work or live or to bring up a family there. I cannot see that there is any incentive for tourism when the television shows almost nightly pictures of the police or the army either guarding a march or trying to prevent one.
The noble Lord may say to me that the people of Northern Ireland have brought this on themselves. I am not in any way trying to deny that. I am myself a democrat and I do not agree with the way opposition to the agreement has been carried out. But it is important for the people in England who criticise us for what is going on to remember that all these things have only happened because we wished to stay a part of the United Kingdom and to be governed by the United Kingdom without interference from anyone else outside. I do not think it is totally illogical to say that if Kent or Sussex had suddenly been told that the government in Paris was to have some influence on their affairs, their reaction would probably have been very much the same as it has been in Northern Ireland.
I am painting a very gloomy picture, and I feel very gloomy about it. I think the country is going downhill fast. I believe that something needs to be done, and done urgently. Of course I accept that treaties between sovereign governments cannot be

1227
abrogated, and I am not asking for that; but what I would ask Her Majesty's Government to do, in the light of the new climate and of the talks which I hope will take place, is to make the way easy for those talks. I hope that they will give every possible encouragement to what is now happening and I also hope they will do their best to hurry these talks along.
It was very depressing when on Tuesday night the probing talks, as they appear to be called, took place and lasted 20 minutes. I was depressed a few days earlier when I was told that these probing talks might go on for months. I was depressed again last night when I watched the Northern Ireland news and saw that it was not expected that there would be another meeting until September. That is extremely depressing because at the moment, in my view, in the view of many of my friends and of many people in the business world, enormous damage is being done to Northern Ireland. This whole process is ludicrously slow and I cannot for the life of me see why there have to be probing talks when every single one of us who takes any interest in Northern Ireland politics knows perfectly well what the points at issue are. I certainly hope that my noble friend will convey to his colleagues the fact that we badly need an olive branch and something from their side in order to give impetus to these talks.
It also worries me to consider what will happen should these talks fail—which brings me to the somewhat wild threat of independence. I cannot find any logic in the suggestion that there should be independence unless it is that the people who are proposing it see in independence an opportunity for their own aggrandisement. It is certainly not logical for them to have spent 20 months resisting the Anglo-Irish Agreement on the grounds that they want to stay part of the United Kingdom and be governed without interference from outside and then to have gone off like whipped schoolboys saying, "We shall have nothing if we cannot have it our way".
Very many people in Northern Ireland do not want independence and would be absolutely appalled at the thought of it. I certainly would be. Frankly, I would rather soldier on under the Anglo-Irish Agreement (bad as I think it is) than have any part in an independent Ulster.
There are two things that we need in Ulster from which most of the other benefits will spring. We need peace which comes from the defeat of terrorism, and stability with some kind of prosperity by the establishment of a lasting system of government. No one can believe that it will be easy, but it is all-important that we should make a start. Somehow or other the talks, which are in their embryo stage, should be given every possible encouragement and incentive, because in my view, if we do not do that, Northern Ireland will go down the drain economically and in other ways a great deal faster perhaps than anybody realises.
8 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I was sorry to hear that the morale of the noble Lord, Lord Moyola, is so low. I should like to be able to say something to cheer him up. I wish he had heard the comments of some
1228
Americans who came to visit me a few weeks ago. They went away exclaiming what a marvellous country we have, that the birds sang, that they could hear the sound of the sea breaking on the shore, how lovely it was and how everything seemed so normal and everyone seemed to be so friendly and happy. It is easy for visitors to gain an impression of that kind but I hope that for a moment the noble Lord was encouraged by hearing what the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hylton, had to say about integrated education in Northern Ireland.
There are bright chinks in the picture and until such time as the noble Lord can bring himself to join the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, perhaps he will use his considerable influence to persuade his colleagues and ex-colleagues to try to implement the observations of the task force report entitled An End to Drift; namely, that compromise and barter are a two-way matter and that, given a degree of reasonableness and magnaminity on both sides, the talks which are only just now getting under way can surely bring us to some solution. I am not as depressed as the noble Lord seems to be at the moment.
Once again we must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for having introduced the order. Turning to the Department of Agriculture and Votes 1 and 2, when the original appropriation order for this year was debated on 3rd March I pointed out that there was a loss of over £10 million to the Northern Ireland beef industry, and indeed to the public purse, as a result of the smuggling of cattle from the north to the south of Ireland. At that time the Ulster Farmers' Union was urging that the green pound should be devalued by at least 15 per cent.—indeed, they would have preferred 20 per cent. In the event it has now been devalued by 5 per cent. for the United Kingdom and 3·1 per cent. for the Republic of Ireland, which will reduce the cross-border price differential from 13·5 per cent. to 8 per cent. That is a move in the right direction because it will reduce the monetary compensatory amounts and thus reduce the incentive to smuggle. Unfortunately, it does not look as though it will eliminate it, much as one hoped that it might, because the negative gap between the green rate and the spot rate (known I believe as the monetary percentage) remains in the United Kingdom at 10·6 per cent. whereas in the Republic of Ireland it is 2 per cent. In France it is only 1 per cent.
It was gratifying to read recently that the Customs had been able to apprehend some substantial consignments of smuggled cattle. Even so, I am afraid that the incentive still remains because there is about £45 to be made on each smuggled animal. If that practice continues it will fatally bleed the cattle industry in Northern Ireland and also the meat processing industry, which is already under extreme pressure and far from secure. It should also be borne in mind that the agricultural income in Northern Ireland last year went down by 20 per cent., in contrast to the overall trend in the United Kingdom.
I should like to look at the subject of alternative crops, which I suggest could also come under Votes 1 and 2 of the Department of Agriculture. As regards forestry, we welcomed the incentive scheme for broadleaf planting but I should like to observe that

1229
that incentive is much undermined by the absence of suitable young plants available from the forestry division's nurseries. In view of the fact that in order to approve the planting grant the forestry division insists on a minimum planting density—which, in my humble submission, does not take account of the way that young trees can be reared using grow-tubes—the number of young trees which have to be acquired from other, private sources, gives rise to such expense that the advantage of the incentive is negated.
The other alternative crop that I should like to mention is horse breeding, a subject of which I profess a profound ignorance. However, I am told that, unlike conventional enterprises such as cattle breeding and the production of milk-based products and cereals, which are now in serious surplus in the EC, there is in fact a demand for half bred and Irish draught progeny—to such an extent that at many times the supply is unable to meet the demand. It was a disappointment that the Government paper on farm diversification did not mention horse breeding as an enterprise to be considered. Indeed, at the moment reaction to the McGee Report is awaited. It is hoped that in that report horse breeding will be recognised as an agricultural enterprise and will thus enjoy the advantages and incentives of the relief on VAT and rates that that would entail.
Ireland was famous for centuries for the quality of the horses that it was able to export. Those horses earned international respect in many fields of equestrian activity and, indeed, in war before the cavalry was mechanised. How sensible it would be, in circumstances where we have too many cattle, too much milk, too many pigs and too many eggs, for horse breeding to become once again an internationally respected enterprise in Ireland and for horses to be exported all over the world.
If I may now turn to the Department of the Environment, Vote 1, the noble Lord told us in March that, in his opinion, the Strangford Ferry was generally reliable. Unfortunately, since that date it has broken down once or twice. Perhaps he would very kindly ask his people to have a further look at that.
Turning to Votes 4 and 5, I should like to mention the Crescent Arts Centre, which is housed in the old Victoria College, dating from 1873–4. It is now a listed building in the Queen's University conservation area and is the property of the Department of the Environment road service. The position is that this very attractive Victorian building has now been spared from the threat of demolition as a proposed road widening scheme has been abandoned. The building having been saved for the time being, it was found that the main auditorium needed attention to the electrical equipment and the cost of this was met by Belfast City Council. Since that time, the arts centre has been told that, to make it safe, the entire building will have to be rewired. The Department of the Environment, the owners of the building, say that they cannot afford to do this and, wanting to sell on the open market with vacant possession, have given the arts centre notice to quit. It is obvious that any commercial purchaser in that part of the city will most certainly be interested in the site rather than in the building, and, even if he did
1230
want the building, he would not be interested in having an arts centre in it.
One knows only too well how sites which carry listed buildings can be turned to financial advantage. The way to do it it to use the four Ds in the developer's dictionary. They are: "deteriorate", "danger", "delist" and "demolition". That is the way to do it. You allow a building to deteriorate, you get it classified as being dangerous, you have it delisted and then you demolish. You then have a clear site on which you can build a new, profitable commercial building. Therefore it is not in the interests of the conservation of this building, or in the interests of the arts centre, that this building and site should be put on to the open market. I would add that it is not only thrusting developers who use the four Ds: government departments do so as well.
Therefore, though the arts centre itself, if pressed, would be prepared to find the £30,000 necessary to carry out the complete rewiring of the building, I seriously suggest that it should be the obligation of the owners, the Department of the Environment, to do this. After all, quoting from the order, Vote 4 states that it is:
"For expenditure by the Department of the Environment on conservation, environmental services, urban affairs and lands, environmental improvement".
That is what this vote is for and I suggest that this project comes under the heading of improvement. This is for amenity in the environment. If it is not possible for the department to keep the building, there is a public service company which would be prepared to purchase it and give the arts centre a long lease, but I still suggest that it should properly be the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.
Turning to the Department of Education, Vote 2, Queen's University is facing some problems. Following what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was saying, the university has been integrated from the start. People from all sectors of society and of the community have always gone to Queen's University. Unfortunately, it is faced with the difficulty of not knowing in which direction to plan for the future. I do not have a full brief on this, but I think I can quote the vice-chancellor as having said that planning for the future at Queen's University is like playing football in the dark with the goal posts being moved around.
On the subject of integrated education, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to Lagan College and quoted some figures on the strength of pupils there. I would just add—he is probably aware of this—that Lagan College has for quite some time had a waiting list for pupils and will be able to accommodate many more once it moves into its new premises at Lisnabreeny. It is gratifying that now, when it seems such a short time since the college was founded, it has an established past pupils' association. With those few observations, I support the order.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as always we are very grateful for the thought, the care and the passion with which your Lordships have debated this appropriation order. Also, I want to express my

1231
personal gratitude to all noble Lords who gave me warning of the subjects which they were going to raise this evening. Many of my colleagues tell me that this is a form of cheating and that I get an extremely easy ride. That may be so. Perhaps I do not reciprocate in the brevity of my remarks, but tonight I shall attempt not to detain your Lordships overlong. I think I shall be able to give a clear reply on the points raised. In a few minutes' time we shall be entering a far more typical and fascinating field, with the other two orders which stand in my name on the Order Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the question of the pathfinder report. I hope that he has been able to find a copy. I am given to understand that copies were sent to the Library of your Lordships' House. I am very sorry and apologise if copies were not available in the Printed Paper Office. Certainly I shall take up the noble Lord's point and see whether there is anything we can do to ensure that such reports are available to those of us who take a constant interest in Northern Irish affairs.
As the noble Lord will know, it is a very valuable report. We believe that there is much content in it, and I hope that the temporary absence of the report from the noble Lord's reading has not made too much of a disaster of his discussion of the votes before us this evening.
The noble Lord also asked about the general economy in Northern Ireland and referred to the current level of unemployment there. He did not exactly take me to task for my over-optimism, but he asked a number of questions. Of course, the Government are very conscious of the need to continue to tackle urgently and vigorously this dreadful problem of unemployment, but first our policy is to bring about the circumstances in which lasting productive jobs can be created, particularly through growth in areas of expansion, by what we call the pursuit of excellence. Indeed that is spelled out in the pathfinder report. We want growth in the products and services which we find in Northern Ireland.
We also have to take interim action, which we do in several ways. One example is the Action for Community Employment which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned. Higher resources have been allocated to that scheme this year as well as to the Enterprise Ulster scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the question of the accounts of the Housing Executive and the auditing of those accounts. He asked about the last published set of accounts of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for 1985/1986 together with the reports of the local government auditor and the comptroller and auditor general. The matters which have been raised in those reports have been discussed between the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and the Housing Executive. On the current occasion the report is generally encouraging, but it identifies some weaknesses in the systems. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that we shall be carefully monitoring any action which we think is necessary as a result of those particular inquiries. I thank him for raising that point because he is quite right that proper scrutiny of those matters is very much to be desired.
1232
The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, Lord Dunleath and Lord Hylton raised the question of integrated schools. I was looking for the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in his customary place but I am delighted to see that he has flown up to join the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned Hazelwood College. Of course anyone who wishes to establish a new grant-aided school, or indeed to have an existing independent school recognised as one which is grant-aided, must follow the normal statutory development procedures, as well as proving that the school will be viable educationally. Controlled schools and maintained schools under Roman Catholic management are subject to the same development proposal procedures as integrated schools, but the question of their viability will have been resolved before any proposal from the department is published.
However, the viability of integrated schools can only be judged on the basis of enrolments over a period of time together with the estimated demand for those places. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the question of Hazelwood College. Certainly a proposal for the development of Hazelwood College was published on 1st June of this year. That leads on to the statutory period allowed for any objections which may be made, and that period expires at the end of the month of July. Thus, I must tell the noble Lord that we are not able to give a commitment as to when any decision would be taken, but I wish to assure him and any others who might be interested in Hazelwood College that we shall make every effort to give any decision as early as we possibly can, and that may involve the next school year. However, I cannot say more than that this evening as the matter is under discussion with the relevant department.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, made one particular point about the debates in your Lordships' House. I think he will be pleased, as I am and as will be many of your Lordships, that the little lights, as I call them, are on in the Chamber this evening. That shows that on an occasion like this, when we are discussing the broad sweep of Northern Ireland affairs, together with every single possible detail of Government expenditure in Northern Ireland, there is some interest in proceedings in your Lordships' House. I hope that the noble Lord will know that interest in our discussions is very widespread in the Province and it is also widespread elsewhere, certainly in my home. I know that affairs which are discussed in your Lordships' House, particularly on Northern Ireland, are of considerable interest and people remark on the trouble that we take over them.
The noble Lord asked me about Co-operation North. I must tell him that three years ago the only thing I had heard as regards Co-operation North concerned the excellent Maracycle race or rally from Belfast to Dublin and hack, depending from which point one starts. So far I have not yet girded myself on a bicycle and taken part in that exercise, but there is always hope!
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked about funding. We have paid Co-operation North a grant of £48,000 in this financial year. That compares with £40,000 in the last financial year, 1986–87. I wish to stress tonight how grateful we are to Co-operation

1233
North for the very valuable work which it does. That is recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and many others in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord asked me about Harland and Wolff. Earlier this evening I stressed that £42.6 million had been granted from the estimates and votes this evening for Harland and Wolff. As regards work in progress on its stocks, the company is finalising its work on the conversion of a roll-on roll-off ship to an aviation training ship for the Ministry of Defence. Other orders in the yard are for the sophisticated single well oil reduction system which goes by the happy acronym of SWAPS. This is being built for British Petroleum and is due for delivery on time in late 1988.
Also on the stocks at Harland and Wolff we find the first of the class, auxiliary oiler replenishment. That is the AOR vessel to which I referred earlier which is being supplied to the Ministry of Defence and is due for delivery in late 1990.
The noble Lord also raised the question of tourism. That matter is also of interest to my noble friend Lord Moyola. There was a drop of around 4 per cent. in the total number of visitors to Northern Ireland in 1986. However, the income from tourism rose by the same amount—4 per cent. So far as we can judge the income rose to around £82 million. That was in line with what happened in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Department of Economic Development is directing resources towards improving tourist accommodation in the private sector as well as assisting district councils with the provision of additional tourist amenities right across the Province. The department has increased by 18 per cent. its grant in aid to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board in recognition particularly of the additional marketing activities which will be needed to achieve the target of 170,000 more holiday visitors by 1990.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, raised the question of severe disablement allowance. We have not found any evidence that activity by terrorists or anything to do with the security situation has contributed to the greater incidence of severe disablement claimants in Northern Ireland. In general there is a greater take-up of social security benefits in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, but that is a reflection of the socio-economic position in the Province where proportionately more people are dependent on benefits.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made a number of points. The first one concerned the report of the standing advisory committee on human rights about the transfer of prisoners. I have nothing more to say tonight about that because my noble friend Lord Caithness gave an answer yesterday to the noble Lord and I do not have anything to add to it tonight. The noble Lord went into considerable detail when he presented his views on ACE—the Action for Community Employment. That was very welcome. He mentioned various aspects. As he will realise, funding for the ACE scheme has been substantially increased over the past two years. The figure sought in the current year is approximately £29.5 million. In my opening I indicated that approximately 6,200 places in more than 500 projects will be started by this
1234
sum. Eighty per cent. of those places are sponsored by voluntary bodies, community groups, tenant associations, churches and the like. There is, I believe, a meeting between the noble Lord's wishes and what we are able to do as a result of the expenditure set out tonight. The noble Lord is right, however, that we always wish to try to do more. I stress that the 500 or so sponsors promote a wide range of activity covering not just home decorating and gardening services for the elderly and handicapped but also the improvement of the environment, refurbishment of leisure and above all tourist amenity areas.
Given our proven resource level, I think that the noble Lord will agree that any changes in the conditions to permit up to two-year periods of ACE employment will drastically reduce the number of people who could benefit from the scheme. Nevertheless, we shall keep it under constant scrutiny. I have no doubt that we shall hear a great deal more from the noble Lord in years to come.
I am grateful for the attendance of my noble friend Lord Moyola. Indeed, he was merciful in not picking me up on all the details since I have no doubt that in his previous incarnation he had all the figures at his fingertips and had to defend expenditure in Northern Ireland.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lord's comments about the legislative procedures for Northern Ireland matters in your Lordships' House. I stress that the Government are prepared to consider any changes to the procedures for legislation in Northern Ireland. These need to be considered in the context of any wider arrangement overall for Northern Ireland's government. We hope that it will be possible to start a constructive dialogue with the political parties in Northern Ireland about those and other matters.
As regards the renewal of direct rule, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place said:
"we are willing to consider changes in arrangements to determine whether it is possible to agree ways of improving the difficulties which we perceive."—[Official Report, Commons, 7.7.87; col. 202.]
From that I think that your Lordships will understand that our minds are not closed. We should like to make some progress but, of course, it has to be a two-way system.
The noble Lord, Lord Moyola, covered a number of points. First, as I think he would agree, violence is no basis for attracting industry. I am sure that would have the agreement of those of us who wish to represent Northern Ireland or seek to sell its products abroad. Occasionally I am keen to project the sale of Northern Irish food, meat and other products as well as its excellent beverages. I find that there is a wide acceptance of the marvellous quality of what we have to offer in Northern Ireland. My noble friend is right that, alas, what we read about the violence that reaches the headlines in the media is no basis for attracting industry or lasting jobs.
My noble friend raised the question of agriculture and farm machinery which is very near to my heart. I hope that the agricultural industry is in no way fading in Northern Ireland. If my noble friend lets me know of any problems of supply, I should do my best to ensure that we help to alleviate any problems,

1235
shortages or breakdowns. I can think of many producers of agricultural equipment. Indeed, one major producer no distance from my noble friend would, I am sure, wish to do anything that he could to help my noble friend.
My noble friend mentioned what he called the probing talks that are taking place. He will know that there is all kind of comment in the media—newspapers, television and radio—as to what probing talks might be, and between sundry persons. My noble friend wonders why these talks will not proceed until September this year. I cannot give him any answer—I do not think he would expect one. No doubt he will know that the summer is not always the best time to find all those who might wish to take part in talks. From the Government's point of view, I see no difficulty; but politicians tend to need a slight break in their endeavours, none more so than Northern Ireland politicians.
Finally, to reply to my noble friend Lord Moyola, I believe that Ulster's image is very high in Europe as well as around the rest of the world. My right honourable and honourable ministerial colleagues who travel throughout the world find a huge welcome and interest for everything that goes on in Northern Ireland and for the life in Northern Ireland. I hope that my noble friend will accept that we need not feel in any way gloomy. I believe that there is a glimmer of optimism. My own experiences give me considerable cause for optimism whenever I go out beyond Great Britain and try to represent Northern Ireland.
I totally agree with my noble friend that independence for Ulster would be a complete disaster. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is merely intended to bring an end to terrorism and, above all, to create conditions for peace and economic progress, which are so much desired by everyone in Northern Ireland and, indeed, by my noble friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, rightly raised many agricultural points. The most important one that taxes my patience considerably is the green pound. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was able to negotiate a 6·3 devaluation of the beef green pound at the Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting at the end of June. As he pointed out, the final agreement meant a 7 per cent. reduction in the United Kingdom monetary compensatory amounts which was much higher than that achieved by the Republic of Ireland. That means that the green pound devaluation will increase producer prices. There will also be a small increase in the rate of calf premium. I hope that the increased support prices together with the reduction in MCAs will substantially reduce the incentive to smuggle cattle South from Northern Ireland to the Republic. I assure noble Lords that the authorities on both sides of the border are particularly alert to that problem. There is good co-operation between the respective authorities on both sides of the Border.
The noble Lord also raised the question of the Unionist task force report. We hope that the report will contribute to some movement towards dialogue in which one day the constitutional parties in
1236
Northern Ireland will be able to discuss their ideas and other prople's ideas with the Government. We have further noted the constructive tone and, indeed, the comments of the Unionist Members in the debate on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 in another place. I stress that the Government want to be able to talk to all the parties about the form of any future government in the Province.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, raised two other points, the first of which concerned horses. I am afraid I am only able to tell him that we are considering the Queen's University report. The financial and legislative issues involved are complex even for Northern Ireland, which is saying quite a lot. We must scrutinise the report further and it will be some time before we can give any final comment.
The noble Lord also mentioned forestry. I think he was concerned at the absence of young plants for broad-leaved planting. He also mentioned required density. Perhaps I may write to him on that particular point.
The noble Lord spoke of the Crescent Arts Centre. As he knows, the arts centre occupies premises which are owned by the Department of the Environment in the Lower Crescent, Belfast. I understand that the property is not yet on the market but it is likely to be so in the next few months. The building is in need of extensive repair—so much so that it is a fire risk and a safety hazard for the occupants. The department, which has to take steps to protect itself from future liability and also to eliminate any prospect of injury or death to users, advised the arts centre in December of last year of the safety hazard and of the fact that it would have to leave the premises immediately. Since the arts centre has not been able to comply with the request of the department, it had no option other than to commence court proceedings. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Does he accept that £30,000 would cover the complete rewiring of the building, which is the alleged safety hazard? Will he accept that the arts centre is prepared to raise that amount voluntarily if given permission?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I should have been aware of the figure mentioned by the noble Lord but I was not. I shall take on board what he has said and if we can help him, I shall write to him on that particular point. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, had a comment to make on that?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, concerning the Crescent Arts Centre, the Minister may like to know that I have written to his colleague, Mr. Needham, with a copy to Dr. Mawhinney, and I hope that between the department, the Belfast City Council and the Arts Council a solution for the continuity of the centre in its present building can be worked out.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as always, we live in hope. I shall look forward to seeing a copy of the noble Lord's letter. I have not yet seen it but I shall endeavour to read everything that he has said.
In conclusion, the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, mentioned the question of Queen's University,

1237
Belfast and the problems of funding which affect all universities and centres of learning. Universities all over the United Kingdom are subject to the Government's aim of reducing public expenditure. Universities in Northern Ireland will be part of that syndrome. However, Queen's University, being an autonomous institution, is quite well able to match the resource provision which we provide. The noble Lord will be aware that such problems have been faced by a number of institutions in Great Britain. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that no university in Great Britain will be allowed to close as a result of the University Grants Committee changes in funding. I think it is equally unthinkable that a university in Northern Ireland would have to close. However, as the noble Lord has pointed out, its priorities and budget might have to change.
I am afraid that I have taxed your Lordships' patience. I hope that I have replied to all the queries. I note that I have some letters to write. With that, I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
8.45 p.m.
Lord LyeIl Lord LyeIl rose to move, That the draft Order laid before the House on 2nd July be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this evening I shall be dealing with two orders, which taken together form a package of reforms. This one deals with the registration of private clubs in Northern Ireland to permit them to supply alcohol to members. The second order deals with the licensing of premises such as public houses and hotels.
This draft order repeals the existing Northern Ireland law which is contained in the Registration of Clubs Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. It consolidates some of the existing law but adds many new provisions. It has its roots in the report of the Blackburn Committee, which made many recommendations for improving the law. Most of these are accepted by the Government and are in the draft order which is now before the House.
One of the significant changes of drinking habits in Northern Ireland in recent years has been a shift of trade away from public houses to off-licences and particularly to registered clubs. The number of clubs has grown dramatically. The total is now over 600, compared with under 400 in 1975. That in itself may be no cause for concern. People are entitled to be members of private societies and share their interests over a drink with friends. However, the supply of alcohol by these clubs has grown out of all proportion to the increase of the number of the clubs or of their membership. It is only too clear that some of them exist mainly to supply drink to all and sundry and are both abusing and evading the existing laws.
A second and more specifically Northern Ireland problem is that there is undeniable involvement by paramilitary organisations in the affairs of a small proportion of the registered clubs. It is essential to take strong measures to cut off any of the sources of
1238
finance for these criminal elements. Let me emphasise, however, that most of the clubs in Northern Ireland are law-abiding, respectable, responsible and free from any taint of criminal involvement. Unfortunately, we cannot make one set of laws for them and another for the more doubtful organisations. I am confident that the law-abiding clubs will accept possibly reluctantly the more stringent rules for registration and renewal. But they will also accept and understand that they are necessary for a well ordered society.
I now turn to the contents of the order. Part I is introductory and formal. Part II deals with the registration of clubs for the first time. Article 4 and Schedule I describe the general requirements for registration. They also ensure that the courts must take account of any arrangements which restrict a club's freedom in purchasing of alcohol and of any provision in its rules by which it can spend money except for its own benefit or for charitable purposes.
Article 6 and Schedule 2 deal with the grant of registration and the issue of a certificate of registration. They introduce a two-tier registration system, as is already used for the licensing laws. The county court will deal with the first grant of registration and the magistrate's court with renewal applications. At present the lower courts deal with both initial grants and renewals. A very important provision is that in future a club intending to apply for its first registration must give the court notice two years in advance and must copy that notice to the police and the appropriate district council. The purpose of this is to ensure the court can satisfy itself that clubs can exist without having to rely on income from the supply of a drink. Applicants will also have to give the court more information than at present and in addition to copy it to the police and the district council.
Article 6 also lists the grounds on which the courts must refuse the application for grant of registration and it contains the grounds on which a court may turn down an application. Your Lordships will find that on page 8 in paragraphs 5 and 6, "A court shall" and "A court may refuse" et cetera. These two provisions relate to the conduct of the club, the nature of its clientele, the fitness of the persons holding office in the club and whether it has been convicted of an offence under the order.
Turning to Article 8 on page 10, this deals with the renewal of registrations. The procedure which goes with Article 8 is set out in Schedule 3. Article 8 and Schedule 3 will place equally stringent requirements on existing clubs to maintain their registration status. In particular the court must satisfy itself that the club is being conducted in good faith as a club and not mainly for the supply of drink. Renewal may be refused on grounds similar to those applied at registration stage.
Part III of the order, covering Articles 20 to 26, provides for the hours during which clubs may supply drink. In future the clubs will have the same hours as licensed premises. This means that they will lose about four hours each week from their total permitted hours.
Part IV of the order relates to the conduct of registered clubs. Article 28 provides that drink can be

1239
supplied only to a member or his guest or an employee of the club. Anyone else found drinking in the club will be guilty of an offence under Article 29 and could be fined up to £1,000. I think your Lordships will agree that that could make the offender teetotal for a good period of the future!
Article 30 in Part IV is intended to restrain the increasing practice of clubs running in what are virtually commercial enterprises. Examples which we find and which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, will be aware of are dances or discos attended by members of the public and are blatantly and openly advertised. This goes far beyond the spirit of the clubs law. The article therefore prohibits holding functions in club premises unless they are for the benefit of the club as a whole and controlled and run by it. These functions must relate clearly to the objects of the club and must be run exclusively for the club members and their guests. Exceptions may be made for functions in support of charity or private functions for the benefit of members.
The Government are very concerned about drinking by young people. They are therefore strengthening the clubs law to bring it in line with the provisions applied to licensed premises. Articles 32 and 33 contain the relevant provisions which largely repeat current restrictions on young people in clubs. The proposal went further by excluding minors from the bar areas of clubs, as Blackburn recommended. However, sporting clubs and the Sports Council for Northern Ireland pointed out that this ban could seriously restrict the involvement of minors in sport. Some sporting clubs would have been faced with the difficulty of either banning them completely from their premises or carrying out expensive and complicated structural alterations to segregate the drinking area. Because of these representations and the value of involving the young people in sport, the order provides that those under 18 years old will be allowed in the bar area of a sporting club until 7 p.m. This I emphasise, will apply only to sporting clubs and it most certainly does not mean that young people will be able to drink alcohol. Any club which supplies it to youngsters or allows them to drink on their premises will be liable to heavy penalties.
Police powers are being extended to enable them to enforce the new laws. Article 37 contains very significant changes to police rights of inspection and rights of entry into registered clubs. The Government are determined in particular to strengthen the hand of the police in investigating club accounts, including the right to inspect books or documents on the club premises and to take them away to make copies or extracts. The police have been consulted about these provisions and will be greatly assisted by them in investigating the affairs of clubs and in particular where their money goes and whether it is being put to legitimate uses.
Part V contains various miscellaneous provisions. Article 41 requires clubs to keep proper books of accounts and maintain a satisfactory system of control of accounts, cash, receipts and payments, and to send the accounts to the police promptly. The remaining provisions deal with such items as proceedings against clubs, proof of consumption of
1240
intoxicating liquor, appeals, amendments, transitional and savings provisions and repeals.
As I explained at the outset, there are two main reasons for tightening controls. The first was the growth in drinking clubs, and this is countered by the stricter checks at both registration and renewal stage. The second was the risk of paramilitary exploitation, and this is countered by those additional checks and by the strengthening of police powers.
I stress again that the vast majority of clubs in Northern Ireland are orderly, well conducted and operated entirely within the law. It is unfortunate that there is another element that requires this strengthening of the law. I also stress that these opening remarks cover only half the overall package of reform. I hope that your Lordships will accept that together with the licensing order, which I shall be introducing in a few moments, we shall try to bring about sensible codification of the law. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd July be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
9 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for having described the background to this important order and for explaining many of the provisions, some of which are without parallel in Britain, certainly in England and Wales.
Nevertheless, for the reasons advanced by the Minister we support its main thrust. I have two or three questions for him which I trust he will be able to answer tonight or perhaps later in a letter. It will now be very difficult in Northern Ireland to register a new club for the supply of intoxicants. That is one of the two main objectives of the order. The applicant will have to overcome a number of obstacles before he can be successful with his application.
By virtue of the order the court may refuse an application if it is satisfied that the chairman, the secretary, an officer or a member of the management committee is not a fit person to hold office. That provision has no parallel in the law of England and Wales to the best of my knowledge. Bearing in mind that the presence of a single unfit committee member can lead to the refusal of the application, that is a sweeping veto.
Will the Minister tell the House on whom the onus of proof falls. If one applies the well known principle of natural justice the onus should fall on the objector. As far as I can see this principle is not reversed by the order. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
The second main objective of the order is to submit the club accounts to close scrutiny. Again this is a new power not applicable in England and Wales. We are told that the club accounts are to be audited annually by a person described in the order as being a qualified accountant. Who is a qualified accountant for the purpose of this order? Does it suffice if he holds a diploma, a degree or has relevant experience in accountancy, does he have to be a professionally qualified accountant? I welcome the Minister's guidance.
The integrity of the qualified accountant is of primary importance. Should the order not have

1241
provided for the audit to be conducted by an accountant independent of and not a member of the club? Possibly the failure of the order to insist upon his independence, particularly if he is not to be a professionally qualified accountant, may be a weakness.
A copy of the audited accounts has to be delivered to the police who will proceed to examine them. That must be right, but one wonders why the order does not require the club to send a copy of the audited accounts to every club member, or at least provide that a copy should be made available to every club member. The club members in general meeting can be a powerful shield against the abuse of power by officials and a committee. It is a basic theory of club law that the club is accountable to its members and the members in general meeting are ultimately answerable for the club. Therefore, should it not be a requirement of the law of Northern Ireland that the audited accounts should be delivered or made available to a member on demand unless, of course, that provision is embedded somewhere within the order?
There is one other point in connection with the accounts, although it does not arise either directly or indirectly out of this order. I have been told that there is in existence within the department, or possibly elsewhere, an independent accounting scrutiny division with the necessary skills and experience to examine and scrutinise club accounts but that it is shortly to be dismantled. Is that right? If so, then without some convincing explanation that appears to be an odd development; but possibly that is an unfounded rumour.
At the end of this long day I have one final, brief question for the Minister. Under Article 37 the police are given wide powers to enter and inspect premises and documents and to remove documents from club premises. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain whether it is contemplated that inspection by a constable in the RUC will take place as a matter of routine and without warrant during the currency of the registration certificate? I am not concerned about the inspection of the premises in connection with the application for registration or renewal of the registration, but I am concerned about the position during the currency of the registration.
I have no further questions for the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. It is our earnest hope that the order will meet and overcome the difficulties which the noble Lord outlined in his speech.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. As always, I am intrigued to know why these rules are to apply specifically to Northern Ireland, but the Minister has mentioned the terrorist problem.
I propose to say little. I am fascinated by the rules covering the supply of intoxicating liquor in so-called nightworkers clubs. This is referred to at pages 6 and 7. The order states that these hours shall:
"(a) not exceed the total of—

(i) on week days, other than Good Friday or Christmas Day, 11½

(ii) on Good Friday, 6;

(iii) on Sunday (not being Christmas Day), 5;

(iv) on Christmas Day, 9½",

1242
and so on. That seems highly complex but in general I see no reason to oppose the order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who have spoken. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who for the second night running when I have been here has attended our debates. I am sure that your Lordships will be grateful that she has taken the trouble to attend because Tuesday was quite a long night and I recall support from the noble Baroness and her colleague. I am very grateful that she came.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, listened to my tale of what might happen and the drinking habits that are endemic in Northern Ireland. I hasten to add to your Lordships that any alcohol that I have taken, apart from one small tot, has been legitimate and I have no knowledge of these bad institutions or clubs about which I have spoken. 1 have first-hand knowledge only of the good clubs and I do not think they will find these regulations and articles unduly onerous.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was good enough to give me some indication of his queries. The first concerned the onus of proof that a member is not a fit person to be a member of the club or of its committee.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I think the point is that unless the court is satisfied that he is a fit person then the registration certificate will not be issued.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to refer to Schedule 2, paragraph 3. He will note that,
"any person owning, or residing or carrying on business in, premises in the vicinity of the premises of the club for which the registration is sought shall be entitled to appear at the hearing of the application and to object to the grant of registration of the club on any of the grounds mentioned in Article 6(5) and (6)".
The noble Lord will see that both give grounds for what the court shall refuse in an application and what the court may refuse in an application. The onus of proof is upon those who object to the grant of the certificate. Under paragraph 3 this can be the police, the district council or indeed any person who might have a legitimate, not frivolous, grievance. They can object to the particular club being opened.
The noble Lord asked about the termination of the department's role in the scrutiny of any club accounts. Under the order the club accounts will go to the police—that is dealt with in Article 41—as well as the district council. A copy will also be sent to the clerk of the petty sessions who is the responsible authority for renewing the registrations. These bodies have the right to object to club registrations. Any scrutiny involvement by the department is no longer necessary. That is coupled with the noble Lord's other query as to who may audit the accounts.
Article 2 on page 5 defines a "qualified accountant". I have forborne to bring the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 to the House because it goes way beyond 397 articles. We maintain that a qualified accountant is someone who is a member of a professional body of accountants. There is nothing in the order which precludes an accountant being a member of the management committee. An accountant is a professional person and we would rely on

1243
him. The police, the district council and the clerk of the petty sessions would be able to rely on his professional integrity and on him acting independently of the club. I hope that Article 41 will not cause any major difficulties.
The noble Lord asked about Article 37. I do not believe that there will be a major difficulty over it. I do not think policemen will turn up at extraordinary hours to victimise or irritate club members by asking for books of account. In most cases the accounts will be kept in a reasonable way. The provisions of Article 37 are a longstop. I hope they will only be used in the few cases to which I referred in my opening.
The noble Lord asked about sending audited accounts to club members. I have scurried through Article 41 and sundry other schedules, and I do not think that that will be necessary. It is a matter for the club's internal management, because the club exists primarily for the benefit of its members.
We are grateful for the study made of the order by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I was interested in nightworkers clubs. The advice that I was given was that the only nightworkers club, as set out in Article 5, known to any officials in my department, is one which caters for bakers who work long hours during the night. I understand that there may be such an institution which is classified as a nightworkers club. I cannot explain why there should be six hours' drinking on Good Friday or nine and a half hours on Christmas Day. In my opening remarks I said that with this order we were bringing the permitted hours for the consumption of alcohol into line with those applying to licensed premises. Article 5(3) states:
"The rules of the club shall prohibit the admission of guests of members to, or their presence in, the club primises between the hours of midnight and 10 in the morning next following."
If the noble Lord was thinking of visiting Northern Ireland to sample alcohol during the night he should perhaps take some advice, because I do not think that he will be able to make use of that loophole. Nevertheless, I am grateful for his interest in the matter. If I find any further information on nightworkers clubs I shall write to him. I think that I have said enough on this order, and I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
9.12 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd July be approved.
The noble Lord said: The order amends existing liquour licensing legislation contained in the Licensing Act (Northern Ireland) 1971. This is the second part of the package of reforms and is equally as important as the order with which we dealt a few seconds ago. I have already explained the difficulties of the licensing laws and how clubs have mushroomed at the expense of public houses. There is a balance to be struck between public houses and clubs. The order is based, by and large, on the Blackburn Report which endorsed the structure of the existing licensing law but proposed limited changes aimed at improving and strengthening the licensing system, as well as some relaxations,
1244
including Sunday and late-night drinking and the range of premises that can be licensed.
I should like to deal first with Sunday opening. The existing law on that subject is unsatisfactory. I am being polite, as I should want to be in your Lordships' House. It is also virtually unenforceable. Hotels and restaurants are permitted to sell drink on Sunday provided that the drink is ancillary to a main table meal. I shall not take your Lordships down the thorny path of what is a main table meal. Even if we settle that question, there is then the problem of detecting when the law is being broken because the law allows drink to be sold before, during or after the meal. Which enforcing authority would be able to say whether the person drinking has had a meal or whether the intention to have a meal is merely in his mind as he settles into alcoholic beverage?
That does not do much for the licensing law in Northern Ireland, but it is patently out of touch with what happens in Northern Ireland on Sundays. The fact that drink can be obtained on Sundays in Northern Ireland in various ways is evident. Some methods of obtaining drink are legal and others illegal. There are many people who belong to clubs and, as I set out earlier, clubs have mushroomed in number by 50 per cent. in 12 years. The members can drink legitimately in these clubs. Many other people in Northern Ireland go to hotels and restaurants on Sunday. However, the law is widely breached. Hotels often sell drink without meals. I also understand that in some parts of the country pubs quietly open their doors. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that that has not occurred in front of me. However, I accept that the law is in disrepute and that it should not remain as it is.
As noble Lords, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, will understand, there are conflicting views as to what the remedy should be. Some in Northern Ireland say that all outlets should be closed on Sundays. However, I think that they and many noble Lords will agree that that is not practicable and would create even greater problems for the police. Some surveys have been taken. They show a distinct trend favouring the liberalisation of the licensing law and that opinion on this subject is now fairly evenly divided. In the light of this trend the only sensible answer is to allow pubs to open on Sundays for the same hours as hotels, restaurants and clubs. The new law that we shall be moving and considering this evening is more in line with what is happening, not only in Northern Ireland, but also in the rest of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, it will be easier for the police to enforce, and we shall certanly look to the police to enforce this law.
Of course, it is natural that some people in Northern Ireland have expressed fears that opening the pubs on Sunday will lead to increased drinking. We have to view this in the context both of the reforms contained in this order and the earlier Registration of Clubs Order. Not all the pubs in Northern Ireland will open because publicans will have the choice. Clubs will also lose four hours a week. These extraordinary institutions that I am advised are called "Bring-a-bottle" clubs, which allow very late drinking, will be closed. Therefore the effect of Sunday opening of pubs on overall availability of alcohol is likely to be small.
I mentioned a survey in Northern Ireland. Surveys have been carried out in Scotland on the changes in the licensing laws there in 1976. They included the Sunday opening of pubs. The surveys show that these changes had not directly led to increased drinking, adverse health effects, more alcohol related crime, or more drunken driving. I hope that the changes set out in the order before us this evening will lead to better quality pubs and perhaps, as has been the experience in Scotland, will encourage a move from clubs to pubs.
Perhaps I may go briefly through the main provisions of the order. Article 3 bans the "Bring-a-bottle" club which is outside both the licensing and clubs law. They tend to be open until fairly late—three or four in the morning. Many young people flock to them. These institutions cause law and order problems and the Government have decided that the only answer is to ban them.
Article 4 makes some minor additions to the ancillary items that can be sold in off-licences and pubs. These include crisps, lighters, corkscrews and some fascinating edible snacks known in Northern Ireland as pork scratchings. I am not able to bring any this evening: it would be against the rules of order. However, I see that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, is beaming; he clearly knows what I am talking about.
Article 5 makes changes in the application procedure for licences. Under Article 5 a publican will be allowed to decide whether or not to open on Sunday and will be able to obtain a direction from the court accordingly.
Article 6 allows a court to grant up to 13 occasional licences on one application. At present the licensee has to make a separate application for each time he wishes to open and have a special licence. The new provision in Article 6 is to help bodies such as the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society. I am delighted to bring this provision forward tonight. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, will agree with me. This excellent society runs a large number of exhibitions. We think that Article 6 will reduce the work of the courts and save both the licensee's and the court's time.
Article 7 refers to extension licences which enable a licensee to sell drink at certain functions held after the normal permitted hours. An important change here is that these licences will now stop at 1 a.m. instead of at 1.30 a.m. as at present. Also the extension licences will only be granted for premises that a court regards as suitable for functions.
Article 8 provides for the rules for Sunday opening. The permitted hours on Sundays will be from 12.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. and from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. Further, no off-sales will be allowed either for pubs, hotels or off-licences on that day. Neither pubs nor hotels will be required to sell meals as a condition of serving alcoholic drinks. However, the meal and other conditions will continue to apply to licensed restaurants, as they do on week days.
Article 9(1), on page 14, amends the provisions of the 1971 master Act relating to alternative hours for off-sales. The Government are concerned about the growing problem of late night drinking in public places, especially by young people. We have received
1246
many complaints on this subject, and clearly part of the problem is that young people can obtain their drink from off-licensed shops as late as 11 o'clock at night. The effect of the amendment is to allow off-sales shops to open only from 9.30 a.m. to 9 p.m. Article 9(2) amends Section 45 of the 1971 Act, and will put pubs on the same footing as hotels and restaurants when applying for additional hours orders, provided that they meet the required standards. Again, this should improve the quality of pubs. The additional hours will end at 1 a.m. instead of 1.30 a.m. as at present.
Article 10 bans young people under 18 from off-licensed premises, except when with a parent. This will be generally welcomed. Article 11 provides the new right of entry and inspection by the police, something akin to Article 37 of the previous order. Articles 12 and 13 deal with amendments to the 1971 Act. Article 13(6) brings ballrooms and horse or dog racing tracks within the range of facilities which can apply for licences. Article 14 deals with the maximum penalties for a number of offences, in particular those relating to young persons.
That concludes the detailed description of the provisions of the order. I am grateful for your Lordships' patience. The order is the second part of the major licensing reforms. I hope that the changes in this order, including Sunday opening, together with the new controls on clubs, will represent a sensible package of reform which will command widespread support in the community and, far more important, be capable of enforcement and will in fact be enforced. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd July be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, once again we thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for explaining the order and showing that it involves an issue of principle as well as law enforcement. I propose to be brief, but I want to say a word or two about the main issue of principle, the extension for the first time since 1923 of the permitted hours to enable a public house, at the option of the publican, to open on Sundays.
This amendment has been warmly welcomed by the licensed trade and others. At long last they see that the public house will enjoy equality of facilities on a Sunday with the licensed hotels, restaurants and registered clubs. On the other hand—and this has been acknowledged by the Minister—the extension has been opposed by a significant number of people who believe it wrong in principle to allow intoxicants to be sold and consumed in a public house on Sundays.
Knowing a little about the Welsh legislation on Sunday opening and about the Welsh experience, I believe that there is at least a case for the legislation on Sunday opening in Northern Ireland to be of an enabling character, leaving the issue to be determined locally on a district basis by a referendum. It has been suggested that it would be difficult to formulate the correct question, but this difficulty has not been experienced in Wales. I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate what were the considerations which led the Government to reject the local referendum solution.

1247
Others are much concerned that the relaxation of licensing hours may lead to an increase in alcohol-related health risks. The Minister has been reassuring on that point, resting his case on the experience of Scotland. But I noticed that when the draft order was circulated for discussion it was then indicated that the effect of the order would be closely monitored by the Department of Health. I do not think that the Minister referred to this commitment in the course of his speech. Is he in a position to tell the House how, and by whom, the monitoring will be undertaken? With those few questions, we are pleased to give this order our support.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, again, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for introducing this order, although my honourable friends voted against it in the other place. I shall of course not suggest such a course here, but perhaps I may be allowed just to say why they did so. It had nothing to do with drinking laws in the Province but with the fact that the suggested proposals are purely unacceptable to many people, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, and the order has been, as has been said, rammed through.
I earlier tonight pointed to some of the weaknesses in the use of Orders in Council, and the noble Lord, Lord Moyola, also mentioned this. My colleagues in the other place made a formal protest. The position is not satisfactory, but alternatives are hard to see at present. Probably the best would be the setting up of a special Northern Ireland committee which could do greater justice to complicated legislation. There would be much greater incentive to effort if amendment were possible.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for explaining this order with such clarity. Having said that, I hope he will accept that no personal criticism whatsoever is intended when I say that while, as a libertarian and strong believer in the maximum degree of individual liberty and choice, I warmly welcome the liberalisation of the licensing laws in Northern Ireland, as a believer in equal democratic rights and equal democratic procedures applied consistently throughout the United Kingdom I have to deplore the manner in which it is being brought about.
A few months ago the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery—whom I am glad to see in his place this evening—introduced a much more modest and incidentally much less controversial measure slightly to extend the hours during which drinks could be obtained in restaurants in England and Wales—a measure which, naturally, I wholeheartedly supported. We had a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage and a Third Reading, all on separate days and well spaced out to give plenty of time for reflection and consultation.
Amendments were proposed, some were withdrawn for reconsideration, some were resubmitted, some were passed and some were rejected. All this is as it should be, and we are all aware of the highly satisfactory outcome. Incidentally, I doubt whether the covers would be on
1248
the television cameras if we were debating a major reform of the licensing laws in England and Wales, however late in the evening it might be.
I suppose there is a faint ray of hope in what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said when replying in our debate on the first order to the characteristically low-key criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and to the slightly more forthright ones made by the noble Lord, Lord Moyola. I do not suppose that anything I say is likely to make much difference: however, I should like to put on record the fact that I think it is wrong that major changes in the law in Northern Ireland—many, rightly or wrongly, controversial within the Province—should be rushed through both Houses of Parliament, almost invariably late in the evening.
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, this is the first time that I have intervened in a matter concerning Northern Ireland and I do so for two reasons. First, as my noble friend knows, for several years I have been campaigning for reform in the licensing laws and in my humble belief this forms part of that general reform. The second reason is hereditary in as much as my great great great grandfather, Samuel Montgomery, a direct ancestor, was a wine merchant in Londonderry in the 18th century. I may say that he prospered in that profession.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for his kind remarks about our efforts in connection with licensing reform in restaurants, but I take issue with him on the second part of his remarks, and likewise with those of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton.
1 congratulate my noble friend on his initiative. In reading the orders, and in listening to what was said by my noble friend, it seems to me that there has been widespread abuse of the licensing laws in respect of clubs and that that needs to be rectified. There has also been widespread abuse of the existing laws in respect of public houses, inasmuch as the law is being flouted. It is commendable that Sunday drinking should be legalised and permitted in this way. If the law is in disrepute it needs to be altered.
However, the law is in disrepute in connection with many facets of Sunday activities which we have debated at great length in this House. Our efforts were frustrated in another place but it is to be hoped that in another Session of Parliament we shall return to the matter; it is not for this evening.
The matter that we are considering this evening allows public houses in Northern Ireland to operate on the same basis as hotels and restaurants. It is a desirable and sensible measure. It is setting a good example and I think that my noble friend has been right to introduce the measure in this way. I agree with what he has said and I hope that the order will be agreed by your Lordships.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we have had a brief debate on the second Northern Ireland order. I am immensely grateful for what has been said and for your Lordships' patience because this order is more complicated than the clubs order.

1249
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, expressed concern about two interconnected matters. The Government consider important the monitoring of the effects of any proposed change in licensing laws in Northern Ireland. I stress to the noble Lord that this monitoring will be carried out by a system of surveys commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Services. The department will look at drinking matters, drinking behaviour, late night drinking and so on, both before and after the new laws take effect. I hope that that survey will be on the same lines as that which was carried out in Scotland after we—I speak as a Scot—attempted to liberalise our drinking hours. I am not too sure about the behaviour; I shall leave that matter to your Lordships. However, we shall be conducting a survey before and after the new laws come into effect.
The noble Lord mentioned the possibility of a local referendum. We felt that there should not be a local referendum on this issue, first, because the cost of a referendum on a district council basis throughout Northern Ireland would be well over £ 1 million. Secondly, local polls would result in some interesting anomalies, such as occurred in Scotland and of course also in the United States, because local polls would result in "wet" and "dry" areas. I do not think 1 need spell out to your Lordships that the result would be that everything on two wheels would be moving across the boundaries between such areas. In the United States they have what they call "brown bagging". Anybody who has seen cyclists on the roads in Northern Ireland will realise that we can do without the additional problem of people carrying supplies.
The views of the community have been expressed in surveys. These show that the matters we have discussed in connection with licensing on Sundays divide the community but on a much more equal basis than was the case 10 or 15 years ago. I think the last survey showed about 51 per cent. of those polled thought that Sunday opening should be permitted. The order before us this evening attempted to set those wishes into some form of legislative order—above all, into some order which we think could be enforceable.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, as we know, comes from Wales. I am given to understand that Welsh local authorities have permission to hold polls on the question of Sunday opening, that is, every seven years. There must be something in their Bible, but I shall not go into that this evening because it might open up lengthy debate in Northern Ireland and indeed in another place. Incidentally, I am told that you need to have at least 500 electors in the local authority area. The advice I have is that all but two of the 32 Welsh local authorities now have elected to open pubs on Sundays. I shall not tease the noble Lord, but perhaps I may just wonder aloud whether his own local authority is on one side or the other of the divide. Perhaps he will be able to advise me on that afterwards.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, felt there was no question of his honourable friends in another place voting against this order. How could I, or any right-thinking Member of your Lordships' House, believe that his honourable friends in another
1250
place would be against Sunday opening en bloc? I am sure that they took the decision they did for good reasons. Happily, the noble Lord and his colleague, the noble Baroness, will not be causing a problem tonight by drinking or voting—certainly not by voting.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, brought in a ray of hope. I was not quite sure whether he thought the ray of hope was directed to the first of the three speeches I have made this evening or whether it was directed at alcohol abuse in clubs or licensed premises. I hope I have been able to spell out for him that we think it is important that we have had more than a modicum—in fact a great deal—of agreement on the steps proposed to be taken in regard to clubs and licensed premises in Northern Ireland.
As my noble friend Lord Montgomery pointed out, there is a first time for everything, certainly for speaking on Northern Ireland in your Lordships' House but perhaps not for speaking on a matter such as alcoholic consumption. I believe he is currently engaged with a measure of his own and perhaps it will have an easy journey through your Lordships' House. I am very grateful for his support and I commend him for his courage. I am sure that his ancestor, like many others, was proud to be a Derry man, and indeed proud to be a prosperous Derry man. It goes to show that in Northern Ireland everybody is quite able to enjoy alcoholic beverages in a civilised way. We hope that both the orders I have moved this evening will help towards allowing people to consume alcohol reasonably when they want and in a civilised fashion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Waterways Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before ten o'clock.