Lords Sitting of 16 November 1987

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

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

Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Act,

National Provident Institution Act,

Bexley London Borough Council Act.

Housing: White Paper Proposals
Lord Dean of 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 Government whether there has so far been any response from local authority associations, local authorities or other groups interested in housing, to the White Paper on Housing (Cmnd. 214).
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead): My Lords, a series of consultation documents on the proposals in the White Paper have been issued separately and we have received written responses to many of these from each of the local authority associations, a number of individual local authorities and various organisations and individuals with an interest in housing.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but he must be aware that most of the authorities and associations interested in
2
housing are somewhat sceptical about the proposals achieving anything that will improve the housing situation in this country. Is he aware of the deep concern of a lot of people about the fact that there is no mention whatsoever of the plight of the homeless in the document or any proposals to deal with the situation? Are we to assume that the Government are satisfied with the present situation where the number of homeless people is rising week by week?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I would not entirely agree with the noble Lord's scepticism. The responses are coming in and it is too early to draw any firm conclusions about the views in them.
As regards homelessness, as the noble Lord knows, we have already increased the level of resources available for schemes for the homeless in London through our estate action programme. One of the great problems is the very large amount of empty property in both the private and public sectors, which could be used to ease the pressure.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, can my noble friend reassure the House on one point? The last paragraph of the White Paper refers to government policies including greater private sector involvement. Can he reassure us that, although no mention is made of the maintenance of housing standards, the objectives of the National Housebuilding Council will be uniformly applied?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, standards are certainly in the Government's mind. We had better wait and see what the Bill has to say when it is published.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister must be aware that the Institute of Housing, which is a totally independent body, has issued its response and it is completely convinced that even the Government's objectives will not be reached by the proposals.
Can I ask the Minister once again about the question of homelessness? Is it not a fact that there is a continuing rise in the number of people registered as homeless and also in the amount of money which has to be found by local authorities from rates to deal with the situation? Bearing those factors in mind,

3
ought we not to put homeless people in this country at the top of the queue for resources and not, as it appears at the moment from government policies, at the bottom?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is not a great deal between the noble Lord and the Government on this. In my first answer to the noble Lord's supplementary question I pointed out that the Department of the Environment is doing as much as it can through the estate action programme. I also mentioned the question of empty property. It is necessary to bear in mind that local authorities could look more imaginatively and positively at ways of bringing their empty stock back into use. There are over 20,000 such properties in London alone. Referring to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, the objectives which the White Paper has set are important. I believe that they can be achieved, but let us see now what the Bill is going to say.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in regard to what the Minister said about local authority housing, is there not a Private Member's Bill in the other place dealing not only with local authority housing but also with the large number of empty properties in private ownership? Does the Minister's reply mean that the Government will support that Bill?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in the first reply which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, I made it quite clear that there is a very large amount of empty property, both private and public, which could help ease the pressure. I did not distinguish. So far as a Private Member's Bill in another place is concerned, I think we had first better wait and see whether it comes to your Lordships' House.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I recently made a suggestion that, as homelessness in London in particular was concentrated in one or two boroughs and they were quite unable to cope, cutting out all the party politics it would be much better to have a regional authority with the power to acquire property from local authorities, which, as he rightly said, have thousands of empty properties? Indeed they do not even know that they have them; that is how thick they are. Private enterprise property that is empty also ought to be acquired. There should be a regional authority with the power to deal with homelessness.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, did make two points and I endeavoured to respond to that debate. I have drawn those points to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Scarman: My Lords, are the Government aware that there are proposals today for a Bill dealing with the use of empty properties for residential purposes? If the Government are aware of that, may we take it that this is completely consistent with government policy and that when formulated, the Bill—it is at the moment only a proposal—should have a swift, non-controversial passage through both Houses?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord about the subject but I have not seen the Bill. The noble and learned Lord would be the first to advise me that I would be rash to say that I agreed on behalf of the Government with the drafting of a Bill which I have not yet seen.
Lord Scarman: My Lords, I should explain that I have with me a broadsheet containing a Bill of nine clauses and two schedules which I shall see that Her Majesty's Government have almost at once.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we shall be most grateful to the noble and learned Lord.

Hospital Beds: Funding
2.44 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to ensure that hospitals where efforts have been made to reduce waiting lists are not obliged to close beds due to underfunding of regional health authorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the Government cannot accept the premise that regional health authorities are underfunded. Nonetheless, there is a huge pent-up demand for health care as shown by the waiting list figures. That is why the Government are providing £25 million this year and £30 million next year for the waiting list initiatives. There are many criteria for applying for this money, the most important of which is that districts and units within them should already have shown that they are tackling the problems within their own resources.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the last point he made is vital to my submission? Is he aware, for example, that in the North West Thames region where there are calls for cuts of £9 million, some hospitals, particularly Northwick Park in Harrow, have striven to reduce costs? Northwick Park has a turnround of beds in minor cases under which patients are not one hour more in a hospital bed than they need be. It has, therefore, dramatically reduced its waiting lists; but the only thanks from the regional health authority have been a threat to close a number of wards. Does not the Minister agree that such action upsets and frustrates the medical profession, annoys people who have relatives in hospital and is hardly the policy to encourage hospitals which co-operate with the authorities in reducing expenditure?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, health authorities have a statutory duty to keep within their budgets. Therefore, they have a duty to examine all reasonable options when service reductions have to be made. However, I agree with the noble Lord that it is not helpful if problems are exaggerated and wild proposals mooted which turn out to be totally

5
unnecessary. That is damaging both to staff morale and to public confidence.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the appalling situation in the West Midlands region at the moment? The Birmingham Children's Hospital, which covers an area bounded by Shrewsbury, Mid-Wales, Hereford, Rugby and Stoke, has precisely four intensive care beds for babies and young children—that is, not just for heart conditions but for the whole hospital. Is the noble Lord aware that 34 children needing urgent operations have been turned away? One child who is urgently in need of heart surgery has been turned away five times. Is the Minister happy that children should suffer and perhaps die because of the situation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it would be unreasonable to expect, and the Government do not pretend, that the sums allocated to health authorities should cover all demands on their services. From time to time, pressures may be such that some services must take priority over others and health authorities must balance the cost of service developments and increasing workloads against other calls on available resources. The detailed matters which the noble Countess brings to the attention of the House are of course for the managers and chairmen of the health authorities concerned.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the most recent figures given last week by his noble friend concerning waiting lists are the highest in the history of the National Health Service except for periods of industrial action? Can he say how many beds are now closed purely because of financial shortages?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, under the last Labour Government acute beds fell by an average of some 2,300 per year. They have fallen by 2,245 under the Conservatives. There are 6·4 million cases—that is, over a million more in-patient cases than in 1979—now being treated, a rise of 18·8 per cent. I do not accept that there is a direct relationship between bed closures and waiting lists.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I did not ask about the number of patients treated or the reduction in the number of beds. I asked about waiting lists. Can the Minister answer my two questions?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, last week the noble Lord asked my noble friend a series of questions on this subject. I believe that my noble friend adequately covered it in his answers.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to take into account problems created by the recent storm in London—for example, at St. Bartholomew's Hospital? The hospital suffered massive damage and the staff worked day and night to transfer patients. Should not they be relieved of having to close wards which they saved from the storm? Does not the Minister also agree that hospitals which treat cancer patients say that
6
patients' only hope of a bed is for someone to die so that they can move in?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as regards the recent storm damage, I understand that the regional health authorities rather than the district health authorities have taken it upon themselves to provide the finance.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, the Minister has not answered the last question put by my noble friend Lady Mar. Is he happy?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is a situation where no one can ever be happy. What I sought to point out was that hard decisions constantly have to be made and that is why we have managers in the health service.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in response to two Written Questions which I have asked the Minister has referred me to the managers of the health service. I have not yet had time to receive answers from them. When I do, I expect that they will say that because of the financial limitations placed upon area and regional health authorities they cannot afford the cost. I should like to ask the noble Lord what I should then do to get a response to the situation.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the question is somewhat hypothetical. When I suggest that noble Lords, wherever they may sit, refer matters in the first instance to the hospital authorities concerned, I am always prepared to take the point on board if a satisfactory answer is not produced.

Securities Markets: Alleged Dealing Problems
2.52 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that all investors are able to deal properly in the current volatile securities markets and, if not, what measures they propose to take.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I have no reason to believe that investors have been unable to deal properly. The International Stock Exchange considers that its central systems have coped well with exceptionally heavy volumes of trading.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that, in the early days of the crash, unit trusts apparently were not marketable and small savers investing in them were unable to sell them? Does he regard that as a satisfactory state of affairs?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am not aware that any real problems occurred on the first day or two of the recent drop in Stock Exchange prices. The International Stock Exchange itself is

7
investigating some allegations that market makers were refusing to answer their telephones. So far, there is no firm evidence of that actually occurring.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if there is to be wider share ownership, is it not a fundamental condition that all investors, and particulary small investors, should be able to deal properly and at the appropriate time? Is there anything in the Financial Services Act or the subsequent regulations issued by the Securities and Investments Board or any self-regulating organisation which requires market makers to make a market at all appropriate times and not to leave their telephones off the hook?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. However, let me suggest to the noble Lord, with all due humility, that the International Stock Exchange has said that there is no firm evidence that anyone refused to answer telephones. The responsibility for handling the Stock Exchange is a matter for the International Stock Exchange itself. It was coping with unprecedentedly high levels of trading—about 100,000 bargains per day. There is no evidence and no real complaint now that the market was not an ordinary market. Indeed, the London market seems to have coped far better than other international stock exchanges.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the Big Bang, which swept away the old system of stockbrokers and jobbers, we may have lost something which was valuable? I refer particuarly to the safeguards in the dealings of small investors. Will the Minister say whether he thinks that on balance the new system, which gives greater competitiveness in the international dealing market for big deals, has turned out to be for the benefit of the country?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, London is one of the two major international stock exchanges in the world today. I have little doubt that the old system of jobbers would have had the greatest possible difficulty in dealing with the circumstances of the last few weeks. However, that is an academic question. If we had not changed, I suspect that London would not be one of the two major financial centres of the world.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I rise again to ask the Minister to request the International Securities Association to look a bit harder for evidence concerning telephones left off the hook. There were numerous complaints. I know people who tried to deal personally and institutionally who were unable to do so.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is not for me to institute a witch hunt. If members of the public have complaints, they should take those matters up with either the International Stock Exchange or the TSA. I am sure that some of the Members of this House will remember that two or three weeks ago, before the financial storm, we had another kind of storm. London suffered some damage at that time. It
8
is pure conjecture, but there may well have been some delays in telephone calls at that time. We are looking for evidence that market makers were refusing to answer their telephones. That is a very different matter from an inability to get through on telephones. At the moment, I have no evidence on either of those matters.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify one aspect of his Answer? Is he saying that, even if it were possible to establish that some shares were not marketable in one way or another, the Government regard themselves as having no responsibility in that area whatever?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the primary responsibility to ensure that there is orderly trading in the market belongs to the International Stock Exchange. If we found that there were periods when that did not happen and there was a breakdown—and all noble Lords will be cognizant that there was a breakdown in orderly trading in every other international exchange in that particular period—then I should surely look into the position.

Hospitals: Assaults on Staff
2.57 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they have in mind to combat the increasing menace of physical abuse and assault upon nursing staff and doctors in casualty departments of National Health Service hospitals.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are naturally concerned that all staff working in the health and personal social services are protected against violence. A Department of Health and Social Security Advisory Committee on Violence to Staff has been established and will report to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the early spring.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, which is helpful so far as it goes. Is the Minister aware—I know that he is—of a particularly vicious attack at a local hospital in Surrey where I am the president of the friends of the hospital? As a result of that attack, a nurse was off sick for three months. Will the Minister also consider the position of the regional health authorities which have to employ security officers? Will he convey to his right honourable friend the need for public funds to be made available in some of the more extreme cases?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as regards the last point which my noble friend has made, it is very difficult, where specific problems are encountered in individual hospitals and units, to make public funds available. On the wider question, I take my noble friend's point. Employers have a duty under Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to

9
ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of employees. As a result of a recent court judgment, the risk of injury from violence is considered to be within the employer's responsibility to provide a safe system of work. The way of achieving that is not only by employment of security officers but, for example, by the installation of closed-circuit televisions, improved lighting and decor, and training in the management of aggression if it should occur.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, will the Minister say whether National Health Service hospitals are public places within the meaning of the law, within which law-abiding citizens are forbidden to defend themselves?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. That is all very well; unfortunately, it does not stop aggression.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply concerning the establishment of an advisory committee will be very much welcomed by the medical profession as a whole? Will it be possible, when the committee reports, for the views contained in the report to be put to the various associations in the medical profession for their examination?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. The committee will draw evidence not only from the medical and nursing professions but also from the social security organisation of the department as well. During the discussions on the report, we have heard a number of instances of best practice. One of the things which the report will seek to do is to make sure that those practices are widely disseminated to every level.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister accept that there is growing concern, particularly among nurses—who are usually the people who see patients first—at the growing level of assault? Does he accept that any of that is due to long periods of waiting? Will the new category of nurse practitioners in accident and emergency units be a useful way of deploying scarce nursing staff?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, the noble Lord is referring to the triage system which is being evaluated in, I think I am right in saying, three hospitals at the moment. The reduction of waiting times through the use of nurses to see accident and emergency patients before a doctor in order to direct them quickly to the most effective clinician would seem to me to be a reasonable solution to this very worrying problem.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, can the Minister say when this report will be finalised? Will he not agree that it is a matter of extreme urgency?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes. In my original Answer I said that the committee would report to my right honourable friend in the early spring.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on special financial assistance for haemophiliacs.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 26,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 27 to 33,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 34 to 64,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 65 to 95,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 96 to 100,

Schedules 6 and 7,

Clauses 101 to 114,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 115 and 116,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 117 to 119,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 120 to 125,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 126 to 143,

Schedules 12 and 13,

Clauses 144 to 146.

—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, although I cast no criticism on anybody at this stage, perhaps I may tell the Minister that the first time we on these Benches saw this suggested grouping was literally about 10 minutes ago. Will he therefore take it for granted that in allowing the Motion to pass we must reserve our right to look at the proposed grouping to see whether it is suitable?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, of course I take note of the noble Lord's comments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill
3.3 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The basic purpose of this Bill is to establish new statutory arrangements whereby the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads can be conserved for all who value and treasure this unique area. It provides for the

11
establishment of a new statutory authority to manage both the land and the water spaces of the area. The Broads cover about 111 square miles in the valleys of the River Ant, Bure, Thurne and Yare in Norfolk and the Waveney on the Norfolk-Suffolk border. The character of the landscape is derived from its rivers, and meadows and marshes that fringe them, and a long history of man's management of the land.
These waterways attract many thousands of visitors from all over Britain and from overseas. There are now more than 12,000 hire and private boats on the Broads and over 250,000 people visit or spend their holidays in the area each year. This brings great benefits to the local economy but it brings pressures and problems as well.
Over the past 25 years there has been a marked decline in the natural beauty and scientific interest of the Broads. This has resulted from the cumulative effect of a set of complex and interrelated factors. A major element has been an excess of nutrients in the river system, mainly entering through domestic sewerage treatment works and agricultural run-off, the origin of most of which is outside the Broads area itself.
This has led to considerable algal growth, thereby killing other animal and vegetable life by depriving it of oxygen. That deterioration in water quality has in turn led to a loss of riverside reed beds and other fringing vegetation, particularly on the northern rivers. The loss of natural protection has exposed banks to erosion from the wash of the increased number of power boats and to abrasion by moored craft. In addition, the conversion of marshland to arable land, itself contributing to the problem of the agricultrual run-off that I have described, has led to the loss of some of the characteristic features of the Broadland landscape, a loss which designation of the broads as an environmentally sensitive area is designed to try to arrest and indeed to repair.
The causes have therefore long been recognised and I know that noble Lords who are taking part in this afternoon's debate are personally interested in these problems and in some cases know of them at first hand. The problem has been to find effective solutions which command general support among the various bodies and authorities involved. Possible solutions have been discussed and each in turn has been rejected over a period of some 40 years. As long ago as 1945 the Dower Report discussed the question as to whether the Broads ought to be designated as a national park but on each occasion that this was considered the conclusion was always reached that national park status as such was not really the answer for this unique area.
The breakthrough started in 1978 when the eight local authorities got together to form the existing Broads Authority to exercise their functions jointly over the Broads area. But that joint committee has no powers to manage the water spaces. That is why the Countryside Commission recommended in 1984 that a special statutory authority ought to be created with powers to manage the land and water in an integrated way. The eight local authorities led by Norfolk County Council prepared a draft Bill for this purpose
12
with Countryside Commission and Department of the Environment support. However, when the local authorities were ready to introduce their Bill in November 1985, they were advised that it was unsuitable for introduction as a private measure. The Government deeply regretted that outcome. In March 1986 we promised that we would introduce our own Bill to set up a statutory authority of the kind proposed in the private Bill.
That is the origin of this Bill. I think it is important to stress that 40 years of failed endeavour, despite the strenuous efforts of many who have attempted to tackle the problem, have preceded this Bill, which has commanded a degree of general support that all previous efforts have failed to muster. I believe that it would be a tragedy for the Broads if it were now to fail to command the necessary support in your Lordships' House to pass into law.
This Bill, which was first introduced in another place last November, built firmly upon the foundations of the local authorities' draft Bill, even though its format and structure are different and various changes have been made. Some of those, changes were made to overcome valid objections by the boating and navigation interests, which had found themselves unable to support the local authority Bill. Others, however, were designed in response to equally valid criticisms by conservation and other interests.
I think it is fair to claim that the Government have throughout adopted an even-handed approach in the pursuit of an appropriate balance among the various potentially conflicting interests. It is conservation problems that have dictated the need for this Bill, and conservation of the Broads for all to enjoy must surely be our ultimate objective. But in seeking that objective we must do justice to all the other legitimate interests—boating, agriculture, tourism, recreation and so on—which contribute to and are a part of what we seek to protect as "the Broads".
In framing this Bill the Government had particularly in mind the precedent of national parks. We have sought to give the proposed new authority all the powers and duties of national parks authorities, adapted as necessary to fit the special circumstances of the Broads. In addition we have sought to confer upon it the powers and duties appropriate to a navigation or harbour authority but with the vital proviso that such powers are to be exercised within the framework not just of serving navigation interests but also in the interests of securing nature conservation objectives. In essence, we are seeking to create a new and special national park which we hope will shortly join the family of established national parks—albeit 40 years after this was first mooted.
I should now like very briefly to draw attention to the main provisions of the Bill. Part I of the Bill establishes the new authority and gives it its general functions in relation to the Broads area as a whole.
Part II provides for the authority to take over from the Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Commissioners their present responsibilities as navigation authority for the Broads and rivers, leaving the commissioners with responsibility for managing the commercial port

13
of Great Yarmouth and its adjacent haven. It requires the authority to set up a navigation committee—on which all the various navigation and boating interests will be strongly represented— which it must consult before exercising its specific navigation functions.
Part III deals with the financial arrangements for the authority. We intend that it should receive Exchequer grant aid on the same basis as national parks authorities. The balance of its expenditure will be met by the eight local authorities involved. Expenditure on navigation will continue to be met, as now, from tolls and charges on boat users.
Part IV provides for the necessary transfers of staff and property and for the authority to be slotted into the local government system generally.
I first impress upon the House that the fundamental purpose of the Bill is to establish new, indeed unique, arrangements whereby the future of the Broads can be secured. Clause 1 sets out the constitution of the authority and provides for a very carefully balanced membership in which all the appropriate authorities and other interested bodies are represented. The membership at a total of 35 is larger than we ideally wish, but with a smaller number it would have been quite impossible to give recognition to all the main interests. Even so, we recognise that there are others who feel that they too should have been represented. These are of course the interests that my right honourable friend will consider in making his appointments. We cannot hope to write them all into the Bill by name and I suggest that we should not even embark on so impossible a task.
Clause 2 sets out the general duties of the authority in the balanced way which we believe to be vital if the new authority is to win the co-operation and acceptance of all the parties who will have to work together for the future survival of the Broads. There has been lengthy debate in another place about the balance that is struck in Clause 2, and the wording of that clause is as amended and endorsed by the Select Committee of another place which examined the Bill with great thoroughness and heard evidence at length from all the interested parties.
Let me stop here to make a particular point. I do not intend to go through any more of the Bill in detail. Its whole thrust is the conservation of the Broads and that area's future protection as a very special kind of national park. I shall briefly draw to your Lordships' attention a few of the specific powers which the Bill contains for this purpose.
Clause 2 with Schedule 3 makes the authority the local planning authority for the Broads with broadly the same powers and obligations as national parks authorities. Clause 3 requires it to prepare a management plan after proper consultation with all interested parties—the first time that this will have ever been done statutorily—including of course the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. Clause 4 requires the authority to prepare a map of all areas which need to be conserved both because of their beauty and their ecological importance. Again the Countryside
14
Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council are to be directly involved.
Clauses 6 and 10 give the authority wide powers to make by-laws, and nature conservation is expressly mentioned as a purpose for which navigation by-laws may be made. Those are just a few examples of the way in which nature conservation interests are built into the structure of the Bill. They demonstrate why it is in large measure a conservation Bill; but I stress that it also takes full and fair account of all the other Broads interests.
We firmly believe that tackling and solving the problems of the Broads depends upon striking a balance between the various interests. On Second Reading in another place my honourable friend Mr. Waldegrave, the Minister who was then responsible for the Bill, declared his conviction of the need to afford equal importance to the various interests. I quote his words:
"Clause 2 sets out the vital balance between the interests of navigation, conservation and enjoyment by the public. All three are, in their own way, equally important and the authority is required to have regard to all three aspects in discharging its functions".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/12/86; col. 666.]
It is our firm belief that without a consensus among those concerned and a willingness on the part of all concerned to recognise and respect the legitimate interests of others no statutory authority can begin to tackle the area's problems. It has been the lack of such a consensus over the past 40 years which has frustrated earlier attempts to create a statutory authority for the Broads.
As I have indicated to your Lordships, the Bill has been given extensive and careful consideration, which has enabled it to be amended and improved in many details. I draw attention to the final conclusion of the Select Committee which considered this Bill in another place:
"We believe that the Bill as we have amended it represents a fair balance between the many conflicting interests, and we hope that this measure will encourage co-operation and goodwill—the only way in which the Broads will flourish".
The Government fully accept the Select Committee's verdict and its amendments. Since that Select Committee reported the Bill has been given further detailed consideration in another place.
I believe that the Bill fully recognises the Broads' national importance and special needs. It accords the Broads a status equivalent to that of a national park but gives the authority even wider powers. It strikes a fair balance between the vital interests of conservation, enjoyment by the public and navigation—each of which is in its own way of equal importance. We believe that the combination of powers, duties and a firm financial base provided in the Bill for the proposed new authority will provide the means whereby, with good will and co-operation on all sides, the future of the Broads can be secured. I therefore strongly commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Belstead.)
3.18 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he introduced the Bill and the reassuring things he said about its objectives. We welcome the establishment of the new Broads authority. At this point let me say that we applaud the work of the voluntary authority, which has battled on since its beginnings against great odds and has done some very valuable work, although obviously without the necessary powers to do as much as it would have liked.
It is generally agreed that the ecology of the Broads has deteriorated over the past 40 years. The Minister covered that so well that I do not propose to dwell on it at length. But we must keep before us, as he said, the object of the Bill. The whole motivation behind it is the need to protect and conserve the Broads. This has been acknowledged by the Minister today and by the Minister in another place in December 1986. I quote another small part of his speech:
"We agreed with all those who, since 1947, saw the need for a durable statutory basis for the management of the Broads, if the continuing deterioration in the ecology of the area was to be halted and reversed".—[Official Report, Commons 1/12/86; col. 665]
I want your Lordships to concentrate on those two words, "and reversed". The extent of the deterioration is considerable but the Minister has covered it at length and I do not propose to go over it again.
We must now decide whether the Bill as it stands will achieve its stated objectives, including the objective mentioned at Second Reading in another place. After waiting for 40 years it is very important that what we do now is right. Maintaining the economic health of the Broads must be part of the exercise. The firm ultimate objectives must be to protect and where possible to restore the beauty and natural wildlife heritage; and then boating, access and conservation interests must all be considered in balance. We have come a long way down the deterioration path and it is necessary to reverse some of that before we can keep the other three in balance. Therefore we have some misgivings about some provisions in the Bill as it stands and certain omissions from it.
The Government have stated again and again—and the Minister has said several times today—that the prime objective of the exercise is to manage the Broads in the interests of conservation. It is surprising therefore that in the list of appointments to the new authority in Clause 1 the Nature Conservancy Council is not given parity with the Countryside Commission. The Countryside Commission is primarily concerned with access. I know that it argues to the contrary but nevertheless its terms of reference and operation are primarily concerned with access. The Nature Conservancy Council has a greater responsibility for conservation and it would seem sensible that it should have at least the same representation on the body.
The Minister spoke at great length about the extra powers the new authority will have—and that is very good—but the exercise of those powers depends to a large extent on the composition of the authority and the interests of the people who are on it. It is, for example, surprising that the Secretary of State should
16
not be required to consult with the Countryside Commission and with the Nature Conservancy Council when he is appointing his nine members of the authority. He is required to consult with boating, farming and land-owning interests, so why not with conservation interests? Given the unqualified freedom of appointment by the organisations in Clause 1(3)(a), there will be a continuing danger of conservation interests being heavily outnumbered. There is absolutely nothing in the other part of the clause to protect the composition in the interests of conservation.
It seems advisable to strengthen Clause 2 to refer to the long-term objectives for conservation. We shall be considering whether we should do something about that in Committee. Later in the Bill the authority has power to delegate all its responsibilities as regards navigation to the navigation committee, yet that committee has no statutory representative of conservation or of access interests. This seems to tilt the balance very much against conservation interests in everything to do with navigation. In fact the role of that committee is not quite clear and that is a matter on which we shall seek clarification at Committee stage.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England is concerned that the final decision on land drainage proposals to which the Broads Authority has objected will be made only by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food without reference to the Department of the Environment. In view of the dramatic consequences of land drainage on the environment it seems odd that the Department of the Environment is not to be concerned.
My final question relates to Clause 17, which allows for money to be diverted from the general fund to meet a shortfall on the navigation fund. A reciprocal arrangement is specificially excluded, and one wonders why. Will the Minister be able to answer that point by the time he comes to reply? Is there to be a ceiling on the amount which can be diverted in this way? There is provision for the repayment of sums that have been diverted but no requirement to repay. Is that an intention of the Bill; or will there be a requirement to repay? If so, will there be a time limit on repayment?
We welcome the Bill. We hope that it will achieve its objectives. I cannot believe that the consumers of the boating interests—those who own boats or hire them and use the Broads in that way—will wish to sail through dead water in a dead landscape. It is as important to them as it is to everyone else that the whole atmosphere of the Broads should be conserved. The atmosphere is due in large part to the richness of its fauna and flora. To defend the interests of conservation is in the long-term to defend the interests of boating and of those who wish access to the Broads for purposes other than looking at the wildlife. With some adjustment I believe that the Bill can achieve its original objectives. We support those objectives. We do not wish to delay the progress of the Bill but we hope that it will leave this House with some improvements.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, it will not surprise your Lordships if I say at the outset of my remarks that in most of what I say I shall be following closely what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, and said so ably. The Bill is good news at a time when we really need good news. It is good news for everyone who cares for the conservation of our wild landscapes not only in the moorlands and hills but also in the wetlands and water areas. That is precisely what the Bill purports to do.
It is no derogation of the Government's initiative, which I greatly welcome, when I say that the Bill has been a long time coming. In retrospect it could be said that, had the recommendations of either the Hobhouse Committee or the Dower Committee in the late 1940s been acted upon in the run up to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Broads might well have been spared many of the problems which have arisen during the past 40 years as a result of developments in agriculture and tourism which have been besetting it ever since. It is worth recalling that background and that fact when considering the Bill.
It is important to be sure that the Bill's provisions safeguard the two purposes for which the national parks were created and that primacy—and this is the really important point—should be accorded to the first purpose of the 1949 Act; that is, conservation. The situation which has developed in the Broads since 1949 gives great urgency to that need. As many of your Lordships know, there is now, to an extent which did not exist 40 years ago, a conflict of interests between, on the one hand, environmental conservation and the protection of wildlife and nature, and, on the other hand, the enjoyment of the Broads by the public; developed, exploited and exemplified by tourism and leading to the proliferation of water sports.
The Minister mentioned a figure. I was looking at some figures in a Countryside Commission paper which show that in 1983 there were 250,000 annual visits to the Broads and rather more than 8,000 private boats on the waters. The latest figures that I have are not quite the same as those of the Minister. My latest figure for annual visits in 1986 is 650,000. I would agree with him—and he is in a position to know even better than me—on a figure of 12,000 boats on the Broads. This conflict in the context of the 1949 Act makes a compelling case for a clear priority to be established in Clause 2(1)—for paragraph (a) on the one hand over paragraphs (b) and (c) on the other—before further conflicts arise on the ground after the Bill has become law. I said "ground"; perhaps I should have said "water".
It is all very well, if the Minister will forgive my saying so bluntly, to speak of seeking an even-handed approach and a balance of interest between those three objectives in Clause 2. Conflicts will arise; conflicts have already arisen. Whenever that happens in future, there must be an established priority which will prevail. It is the duty of Parliament to make sure that this is so in the Bill. The Bill as drafted does not, with great respect to the Minister, establish that priority.
18
Rubbing it in, the importance of doing so can hardly be exaggerated. I should like to quote from the opinion column in the November issue of the Geographical Magazine. Perhaps I should explain that the Geographical Magazine is a prestigious journal published within the Royal Geographical Society and not to be confused—meaning no disrespect—with another periodical similarly named published in Washington, DC. What is quite tellingly said in the opinion column about the tourist industry is:
"The tourist industry generally perverts and consumes the very assets it exploits. The trade usually functions without regard to wider issues or the longer term. 'The Torremolinos effect' can now be seen in Bali".
One could substitute for the word "Bali" one or two places in the Broads, even though they will not like my saying it. Wroxham, Hoveton and Potter Heigham are examples.
It surely adds further emphasis to the point made by the noble Baroness of the need for the Secretary of State to consult with the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council when making his own appointments. We note that five such appointments are earmarked for consultation with the boating interests and with the farming and landowning interests. That leaves four among whom I should have thought it important that he consults the two national bodies.
At the beginning of my few remarks I said that this is excellent news. I should like to join the noble Baroness, although perhaps she did not do so, in congratulating the Government on bringing forward their own Bill. I should also like to congratulate the Countryside Commission on its continued support of the voluntary body, the Broads Authority, over many years and its advocacy of a Broads Authority in statutory form.
Finally, I should like to congratulate—as the noble Baroness did—the Broads Authority. One has seen the conjunction, voluntarily achieved, of eight local authorities operating at a time of considerable difficulties and great financial constraint under a most enlightened Broads officer, Dr. Aitken Clarke, whose job is analagous to that of the officers in the national parks. To me, that co-operation is a splendid and shining example of local government at its best.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I should like to start by welcoming the Bill and saying that I fully support it. I make that clear because, like the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I wish to press strongly one main point. That should not be taken to imply that I do not welcome the Bill. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister who, I know, has put in painstaking and patient hours over months of work in order to bring us to where we are today.
There has been considerable debate already about the basic conception of the Bill as set out in Clause 2(1). Frankly, I believe that it is flawed and irrational, but I want to make a slightly different argument. It requires only a simple adjustment, as I believe, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord had in mind. The Bill seeks to equate as equal factors conservation,

19
tourism and navigation. Indeed, a Minister in another place went so far as to say, in Norfolk of all places, that the primacy of one concern over another is not in the interest of the new Broads Authority and that conservation should be given only an equal standing with navigation and recreation.
I am surprised that there is general misunderstanding about the meaning of the word "conservation". I am even more surprised that so many authorities, like the Countryside Commission, seem to fall into the same trap. There really are too many people who seem to think that conservation means only the birds and the bees and so on. I find it rather disconcerting and annoying that every time I seek to intervene and talk about conservation everybody imagines that I am thinking only of eagles and avocets, and all the rest of it.
The Broads, like many other special sites all over the world, are a microcosm of a world problem, the interface between human development and the natural systems. The dilemma occurs on a local, continental and even on a global basis. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an analogy. What is being implied in this Bill—that conservation, navigation and recreation are equal—would be the same as saying that the health of the Antarctic continent is on the same level as oil drilling, sledging with huskies, or something of that sort. In world terms, it is the same as saying that the conservation of our natural systems, particularly the air we breathe and the water on which we totally depend, are on a level with motorised traffic and football. There is completely muddled thinking over the meaning of the word "conservation".
Funnily enough, it is widely understood by the young. Surely, therefore, it is somewhat embarrassing that we keep coming back to the problem in Parliament, and in your Lordships' House. Nobody seems to know exactly what we are talking about when we refer to conservation. The pitfall is that conservation is wrongly interpreted by all of us who ought to know better. It is interpreted as meaning the protection of birds, or whatever. Fundamentally that is not conservation. Conservation of the environment is now imperative for the wellbeing and perhaps for the survival of the human race. You can conserve buildings or bridges. We are conserving Westminster, and Venice. You can conserve rivers, forests, mountains and estuaries, and so forth.
When, within a conserved environment, you have achieved the health in which any human activity can take place, you can then decide to manage water ski-ing, tourism, employment, navigation, bird reserves, or anything you like. But without a conserved environment, how on earth can any of these things be perpetuated or survive? Everything will fail in the end. As, I think, the noble Baroness mentioned, there will be no interest for anybody in boating along in a sterile, stinking waterway. If conservation does not have absolute primacy over all other human activities—and I am not talking about bird watching—disaster will follow for future generations. There will be nothing to attract tourism and recreation, including boat hiring, in a degraded
20
and sterile environment. If the Broadland waters are sterile and ultimately stinking, the boat owners will lose their customers, employment for local residents will be extinguished, and there will be no need any more for a Broads Bill.
I have known the Broads intimately off and on for 60 years, possibly longer. As recently as the 1950s and even the early 1960s you could go along in a punt and the water was always gin clear. You could see down to the bottom; anything up to 10 feet. You could even see little bugs crawling about on the floor of the dykes and the Broads. In the late 1960s and 1970s they looked like mulligatawny soup but now there are many which look like tomato soup. My belief is that that is due largely to drainage rather than to pollution from boats. It is absurd to say that agriculture, navigation, boating or anything else can exist without conservation of that environment.
In the context of the Broads it is relevant to emphasise the fact that exactly the same progression, I am sorry to say, is being permitted and encouraged in the Flow country in Sutherland and Caithness. That fact is not irrelevant and, unless the Government make a minor adjustment to Clause 2(1), I fear that the same thing will happen in the Broads as is happening in the Flow country. It is a unique wetland, of enormous importance throughout the world, and it is being vandalised and exterminated beyond the point of no return by the planting of lodgepole pines, which no tourist or anyone else wants to see. When that vital area has been obliterated and turned into dark green desert, the birdwatchers, fishermen and everyone will cease to go and there will be no local employment. We must avoid that happening in the Broadlands.
We are fortunate that the Government are introducing the Bill. I should like to ask my noble friend to take on board the views which are being expressed to him today as regards the absolute primacy of conservation; it is the primacy of conservation over the area as a whole, including those parts used for navigation, agriculture, tourism, birdwatching and so forth. I am not speaking about the conservation of birds. The conservation wording, or brief, and the duty of the authority, must be introduced before the three other factors are mentioned.
I have no objection to wildlife protection being equated with recreation, because thousands more people every year go to see wildlife wherever it may be and certainly in the Broads. Birdwatching and natural history are synonymous with recreation. In my view—and there is plenty of evidence to support it—they will outnumber boating, sailing and cruising. However, these people boating and sailing must be looked after and they need a pure environment. They need conservation, even though they may not know a heron from a sparrow. I hope that the Minister will include conservation in its broadest sense as part of the opening sentence in Clause 2 and then perhaps go on to substitute for subsection (a):
"enhancing the natural beauty of the Broads and its wildlife",
or something similar. In other words, wildlife need not be included in the first sentence as regards the functions of the authority, provided that

21
conservation of the Broads as a whole is the fundamental first objective of the Bill for all interests. Wildlife conservation can join Clause 2(1)(a) as part of the objective of enhancing the natural beauty of the Broads, which is where it belongs.
In making that suggestion the two parts are indivisible; I do not want to find that they have fallen between two stools. As Clause 2 reads at present it is nonsense and does not stand up to logic or comprehension. I believe that in future years it will appear as though Parliament did not understand what it was talking about unless the minor adjustments for which I am asking are made.

Haemophiliacs: Financial Assistance
3.46 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement currently being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Health on haemophiliacs infected by the AIDS virus. This Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I wish to make a Statement about haemophiliacs who have become infected with the AIDS virus as a result of treatment with infected blood products. I should explain that I am doing so in the unavoidable absence of my right honourable friend who is unwell.
"As the House knows, the position under successive governments has been that, while compensation may be sought through the courts if there is a question of negligence, there is no state scheme of no fault compensation for those damaged by medical treatment.
"The Haemophilia Society has, however, put to us a powerful case that the position of haemophiliacs is wholly exceptional and should be treated as such. Their employment prospects and insurance status were already affected by the haemophilia itself. The treatment that led to their infection was designed to help them to live as near a normal life as possible. The hereditary nature of haemophilia can, and in some cases does, mean that more than one member of the family may be affected.
"The Government, having considered all the circumstances, have concluded that it would be right to recognise the unique position of haemophiliacs infected with this virus. We therefore propose to make an ex gratia grant of £10 million to the Haemophilia Society to enable it to establish a special trust fund. It will be able to make payment to the affected individuals and families throughout the United Kingdom and to do so with greater flexibility than could readily be achieved in any other way.
"The House will wish to know that we have put this proposal to the society, which has welcomed it warmly. The society has asked for advice and assistance in administering the fund, which we have gladly agreed to arrange.
"The grant of £10 million is being made from the reserve. When the full details of the grant and trust fund have been settled, there will be an exchange of
22
letters with the society. I shall arrange for copies to be put in the Library.
"I know that the House wishes to express its sympathy to the individuals and families who have been affected in this tragic way. I hope that the whole House will welcome this action to translate that sympathy into practical help".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for reading the Statement that was read in another place by the Minister for Health. For once it is a pleasure to give an unqualified welcome to a statement of government policy. It is a rapid and positive response to the proposals which came not only from the Haemophilia Society but from both sides of your Lordships' House in the debate on Tuesday of last week, including the speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and myself.
The statement is a positive recognition of the great hardship, too often resulting in death, suffered by those who have been struck by two potentially life-destroying conditions. Our sympathy, like the sympathy of the Government, goes out to the victims and their families.
As the Minister said, and as I said last week, the position of haemophiliacs is exceptional. I have great respect of the Haemophilia Society, whose officers I have met. I am sure that, with the readily accepted offer of assistance from the DHSS, it will admirably administer the ex gratia payment. However, I should like to put one question to the Minister. Does this not give added weight to the argument for some kind of system of no fault liability for others who may suffer under circumstances where proving negligence by a health authority or a doctor is neither easy nor desirable? If the Minister does not now wish to give a considered answer to that question, I hope that the Government will carefully consider the matter and that he will bring back a Statement to the House.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I should like to associate these Benches with the comments of the Government as regards the tragedy of the haemophiliacs and also with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in praise of the government scheme. I should like to ask the Minister a question in almost the same terms as that asked by the noble Lord but phrased in a different way. It is clear that the haemophiliacs who contracted AIDS in this way deserve the best form of government financial help—and I avoid the expression "compensation". Is this rather large block grant to a society which consists of those who are ill and those who are caring for them for that society to administer a new form which has been devised? If so, do the Government see any future in such a way of administering help in the case of other medical conditions, or indeed misfortunes that may befall people, which are not illnesses at all but something quite different? In short, are we at the beginning of a new age of social and health administration?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to both the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Kennet, for their immediate and generous response to this Statement. I certainly agree that the position

23
of haemophiliacs is quite exceptional. When members of the Haemophilia Society met my right honourable friend on 3rd November, he took the point very quickly and, as the House has now discovered, reacted very rapidly. Personally I am delighted that we have been able to help sufferers from haemophilia who have contracted AIDS as a result of the treatment they have received, which incidentally is through no fault of the clinicians treating them or indeed the Government.
That brings me very neatly to the subject of no fault compensation. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will remember, last week we had a debate on the subject in which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, raised that question, which was considered many years ago by the Pearson Commission. The commission reported in 1978. Having studied the evidence from other countries and considered a possible compensation scheme for personal injuries resulting from medical accidents, the report concluded that this was a very difficult matter but that on balance such a compensation scheme should not be introduced here; it recommended that negligence should continue to be the basis for liability for most medical injuries. I should point out that in this case no court has judged compensation to be in order and of course it would be a matter for the courts so to judge if anybody were to bring an action.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked whether this issue ushered in a new form of social security arrangement. I do not view this measure as a form of social security arrangement, whether new or old. Certainly it is not entirely new. I am advised that the family fund administered by the Rowntree Trust would be similar. As we have all agreed, the needs and treatments of haemophiliacs are quite unique, and I cannot think of any further groups that would qualify for such assistance.
It is easy to make such a remark. Nobody knows what the future will bring. In 1980 and 1981 we did not know about the terrible scourge of AIDS, nor realise how many people it would affect so disastrously in the following five or six years. Moreover, it will continue for some considerable time to come.
Returning to my original remarks, I am very pleased that both the noble Lords have been so generous in their response.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, from these Benches I also warmly welcome this very proper act of generosity by the Government toward these doubly unfortunate people. I also welcome the method that has been adopted, which in these circumstances seems to be so much more sensible than setting up some bureaucratic organisation.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for putting the point of view of these Benches. I should point out that the fund is unique in that it is specifically for those people who are facing the singular and tragic circumstances of haemophilia and HIV infection.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I should like to make one brief supplementary remark. The Minister accepted that the Government agreed with one of the negative conclusions of the Pearson Report, but so far as I know they have not agreed with any of its positive proposals. I happen to disagree with the one conclusion that the Government have accepted. I wonder whether the issue, which has still not been answered, is one to which the Government will give further thought.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that goes extremely wide of this Statement but, as I said in the debate last week, this matter will continue to engage the energies of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, having taken part in the vaccine damage debate in your Lordships' House some time ago, and indeed having initiated it, I only wish to rise briefly to congratulate the Government on having met what is a wholly exceptional situation with such humanity, speed and generosity. The situation is exceptional in a number of ways but not wholly exceptional in others.
As is well known to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, one aspect of the matter has a more general significance. If one looks at the state of the art of medicine at the relevant time, there was then no known causative link between the treatment and the infection. This is a problem of more general application.
Secondly, until we reach forward in the law to accept some form of strict liability, in cases where fault is not an essential ingredient the only way that the Government can deal with such catastrophes is not by compensation as it is ordinarily understood but by offering a generous ex gratia grant. I congratulate the Government on their action. However, there are greater problems that lie beyond this wholly exceptional situation.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am very grateful to my noble friend for underlining that point. Of course, in order to be in a position to pay compensation, there must be something that requires compensation. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that can only be established through our legal system and therefore compensation would not be appropriate in this particular case whereas an ex gratia payment clearly is appropriate.
Lord Walston: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House approximately how many haemophiliacs there are who are confirmed sufferers from AIDS or who have died?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, according to the estimates of the Haemophilia Society, with whose figures we do not disagree, I regret to tell the House that there are some 1,200 HIV infected people. Of that number, 57 have AIDS and so far 41 have died.
Lord Galpern: My Lords, can the Minister say whether this contribution is to be a final and full settlement of the claims for the misery that will be suffered by such people in the future? In the event of the Haemophilia Society indicating quite clearly and

25
fully to the satisfaction of the Minister that additional aid is required, will that request be taken into consideration?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not accept that this payment is in settlement of a claim. As I have already explained, it is an ex gratia payment in respect of a particular and tragic circumstance. The offer was made to the Haemophilia Society at the end of last week and it has been gratefully accepted.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I do not think anybody who is interested in such matters will feel anything hut heartfelt gratitude to the Government for making that Statement. But I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell me one thing. One sees in every surgery and hospital waiting room a notice urging one to become a blood donor. When one volunteers to do this, is one given a strict examination to make sure that one is not a carrier of the virus oneself?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, indeed, my Lords, and the country remains extremely grateful to those people who continue to give blood at this very difficult time. Not only is the blood tested initially before full amounts and futher amounts of blood can be given, but the blood products are now also heat treated.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether or not the Government have given further consideration to the suggestion that was made to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, about the possibility of suing the suppliers of Factor VIII?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think I need a little more notice of that question. If I may, I shall look into it and write to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I should be obliged if the noble Lord would allow us to know the reasons for not suing them.

Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill
4.1 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I intended to start my remarks by saying that it is an understatement that the Bill has taken so long coming. With the intervention of the Statement it has taken an even longer time. It has taken a long time to set out a framework for a statutory body to manage the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads and I for one welcome its arrival in this House for a Second Reading.
As has already been mentioned in the debate so far, it was in 1947 that the Hobhouse Committee recommended that the Broads should at least have national park status, and I should like to add my praise to the Norfolk County Council and the relative local district councils who lent their support to the running of the non-statutory Broads Authority over these years as a kind of holding operation. Of course, more recently the Countryside Commission,
26
following a review, concluded that a statutory body consistent with that set out in the Bill was their preferred option for a way forward. I also welcome their support for the progress of the Bill so far.
Of course the fate of the Norfolk County Council's Private Bill which floundered on a technicality is well known. Nevertheless there was, and still is, widespread support for a Broads Bill and the Government have recognised the national importance of the Broads, and indeed the international importance of the Broads, and have decided to introduce their own Bill. That, too, is a matter for congratulations.
It is essential that we in this House recognise the delicacy of progressing the Bill through both Houses. It would indeed be a tragedy if its passage was thwarted. Already the Bill in its present form is a hybrid and too much interference with its content could run the risk of re-hybridising it. I make apologies to noble Lords for the jargon. But the real risk is that of losing the Bill itself if parliamentary time cannot be found to start the process again.
I strongly believe that the Bill deserves our support. I also believe that there is considerable support for it inside your Lordships' House, across all parties, and of course outside, too. There is nevertheless substantial evidence that the Broads' eco-system is deteriorating. The rivers are polluted, as has already been said. There is erosion of the river banks, there is diminishing wildlife and until the experimental Broads grazing marshes conservation scheme was introduced by the Government large areas of the Broads were under threat. Incidentally, the high take-up of that scheme has certainly mitigated the worst effects of that loss: and of course the farmers are to be congratulated for their cooperation in the scheme.
This area of the Broads is unique in Britain and in view of the different interests, with the conservationists, the navigation rights and, of course, the access of people for pursuits of leisure, it is time to consider—indeed it is long overdue to consider— a framework for sound management which will address the issues of balancing various interests and, of course, strategically planning for the future of the area. Sadly, the history is one of fragmentation and diffuse responsibilities.
There are just two points that I believe should be given further consideration and I ask for the Minister's indulgence on both of them. The first is the need for the Bill to say something about a chief officer post for the new Broads Authority; that it should be full-time and should be permanent. The second issue is the concern shared by some who have taken part in this debate so far and others outside that insufficient emphasis is given to safeguarding, conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Broads.
On the first issue, there are a number of references to this area of Norfolk and Suffolk being comparable to the national parks. Certainly the task to be undertaken and sustained is as great as that of the national parks—dare I say even greater? Therefore it seems to me appropriate that the Minister gives some thought to this issue. May I suggest also that more

27
thought be given to the possibility of the involvement of the Countryside Commission in making the appointment of the chief officer?
On the second point, it is my view that the Bill is a true Bill for "conservation" in all meanings of that word and that the wording of Clause 2 is all right as it stands. Conservation, rights of access for leisure and navigational interests must be given equal consideration and no one interest should be pursued at the expense of the other.
There are a number of safeguards for conservation built into the Bill for those who are concerned: in Clause 2, areas of special interest; in Clause 4, preparation of maps; in Clause 5 notification of all operations; in Clause 6, making by-laws and in Clause 15, allocation of grants. In all of these, the Nature Conservancy Council and/or the Countryside Commission are among the consultees. The point was made well by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, about the vested interests in the Broads being confirmed and enhanced, and about the broads being a beautiful place. Indeed it is a vested interest on the part of the navigational people, the people running the boat companies and those of us who enjoy the beauty of the Broads, to see that they are a beautiful place. The vested interest of all those partnerships is a very real one. Therefore I believe that the balance of interests and the necessary safeguards are contained within Clause 2.
However, one cannot rule out the possibility of the isolated occasions when conflicting interests cannot be reconciled. Will my honourable friend the Minister give some thought to this in his statement, without upsetting the substance and objectives of the Bill? The principle of parity has been established in the Bill so far and anything that could upset that runs the risk of our losing the Bill altogether. I ask the Minister whether he will please give some consideration to giving as part of his statement some guidelines similar to what is proposed in the DoE Circular 4/76, which is known by many of your Lordships as the Sandford agreement.
In conclusion, the Bill in its present form offers the best prospect that there has been for years to provide a framework for sound management, a clarification of responsibilities, protection of all the varying interests and long-term protection of this very special area of Norfolk and Suffolk. I believe that a fair balance has been struck between all the conflicting interests and I urge your Lordships to give the Bill a successful passage on to the statute book.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was quite correct when she said that it was her view that there was in your Lordships' House general approval of the Bill. That is quite manifest from the speeches that we have already heard and when I have sat down only one remains. That does not mean to say that the Bill cannot be improved—but improved in. I suggest, only relatively minor ways and without in any way jeopardising its rapid passage. I agree wholeheartedly with my noble
28
friend Lord Hunt and with other speakers, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, in their comments about conservation. It is so refreshing to hear the definition made by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton. I am sure that his definition of conservation is the correct one. "Conservation" is an all-embracing term. It is the main point, one could almost say the sole point, of the Bill. But the Bill is concerned with conservation in its widest sense. There may be a danger from the constitution of the authority that the wide aspects of conservation are lost sight of or pushed a little into the background. That is a slight danger but we should be aware of it.
I should be happy to see the Nature Conservancy Council brought more into the operation of the Bill, just as the Countryside Commission has been. Both are valuable bodies. Their experience and the views they put forward will be essential if the new authority is to work well.
There are one or two relatively small points on which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, could enlighten us. Before moving on to those, I wish to support the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in her plea for the appointment of a chief executive. That is a vital position. I am sure that the authority and its chairman will be very able. But these part-time people have many other activities. The complexity of conservation, in its broadest sense, of the Broads is such that it requires not only a highly qualified officer but someone who is there for a considerable length of time and who can become acquainted with all the problems, the various local authorities, the people and the personalities involved in the proper conservation of the Broads. I hope that we shall receive some assurance from the Minister that there will be, if not statutorily, at any rate a very firm commitment from the Government that a chief officer will be appointed to the authority.
I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I raise some relatively minor details. I am not clear what the powers of the authority will be as regards pollution of the waters of the Broads. The noble Lord mentioned that quite a lot of the pollution comes from outside the Broads area. Will it be possible for the authority to have control over that, or will its efforts be restricted to the geographical area of the Broads itself? Will the authority be able to carry out properly its job of ensuring the cleanliness of the water which, after all, is the essential part of the Broads, if people outside its boundaries are free to go on polluting as at present?
Will the authority have power over the riparian farmers to restrict, if it sees fit, the application of nitrogen so that the nitrate level of the Broads does not rise unduly high? I believe that there is already danger from that source. What powers will the authority have to interfere with the farming practices of those who farm the neighbouring land? Will the authority have powers to limit the number of pleasure boats? We have heard of a terrifying increase both in boats and occupants. Will the authority have powers not only to license the boats and to make a charge but actually to say at some stage. "We have enough boats here. No more licences will be issued."

29
The final point on which I should be grateful if the Minister could give some indication of what the Government have in mind concerns finance. As I understand from reading the Bill, particularly Clause 14, the authority is empowered to recover costs, in excess of any charges it may make, from the local authorities in specified proportions. Is that an unlimited right? Or will the local authorities have the power to say, "No. This levy upon us is too great. We do not agree with what you are doing. We think that the charges are too high and therefore we shall not meet the commitment which appears to be laid upon us under this Bill"?
In other words, will the local authorities have the ultimate veto on the amount of expenditure, or will the authority be completely free of all financial restraints and be able to spend as much as it wishes regardless of the feelings of the constituent local authorities? That question may be unduly hypothetical because the authority itself is of course made up of representatives of the local authorities to a large extent. However, that is a question on which it would be valuable to have rather more information than I can glean from a perusal of the Bill.
I go along with those who have thanked the existing authority for the work that it has been doing. I also wish to add my thanks to the port and haven commissioners who after considerable discussions, and, one could almost say, struggles, had given up some of their age old authority in the interests of making the scheme feasible. They have been very public spirited, and that should not go unnoticed.
This is a good Bill. I hope that we can make the minor alterations which have already been suggested to improve it still further. We on this side of the House, as my noble friend Lord Hunt has already said, wish the Bill well.
4.17 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I, like most noble Lords, welcome the Bill. I congratulate the Government on making it part of their programme because the Broads is a remarkable area. It is unique in Britain. Those of us who know it, live in it and love it are keen to preserve it. This Bill will help to do that. The varied interests of the landscape: the water, the flora, the fauna, the birds, the wildlife, agriculture, leisure and holiday making, all make up the Broads. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Belstead on using those words. It is those features which the Bill seeks to conserve.
Modern methods of agriculture, sailing and tourism have all required a more co-ordinated approach in view of the difficulties arising over the last few years. It is amazing to think, as my noble friend reminded us, that for 40 years some form of organisation has been sought. At least that has been achieved. This Bill is the result of that. The Bill is to be welcomed and protected.
Enormous amounts of effort have been expended to get agreement on issues on which there was originally substantial disagreement involving a substantial variety of interests with different weights attached to them. At last those interests have been, if not reconciled, at least moulded in such a way as to
30
produce this Bill. I congratulate all those who have been involved in bringing about the Bill. I associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in paying tribute to the Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Commissioners who have gone to a great deal of trouble to enable the Bill to come about.
I had a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he said that the interests of the environmental conservationists are in conflict with tourism. I think that is so, and it is bound to be so. Any interest which is pursued to its finite end is bound to be in conflict with another. I remember my father used to say that he was quite sure Blackpool was a lovely place once upon a time but now tourism has taken over, and who is to say which is the better?
I was interested to hear the speech of my noble friend Lord Buxton. We know of his concern for conservation and wildlife. It is a concern which he has frequently expressed and it is one which I respect. But I thought he went over the top this afternoon. He said that nobody wants stinking Broads. Nobody does want stinking Broads, and that is the whole duty of the new Broads Authority. It is its duty to conserve.
If one looks at Clause 2 it says at the very beginning:
"It shall be the general duty of the Authority to manage the Broads for the purposes of—
(a) conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Broads".
If noble Lords look at Clause 25 at the bottom of page 19 it says:
"References in this Act to conserving the natural beauty of an area include references to conserving its flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features".
That is pretty wide conservation. The noble Lord said that he wanted conservation to be given primacy. That is a very large step indeed. He explained how it was essential to have conservation in the end, otherwise nothing existed. If one were to follow that argument right through to its conclusion one should say that there should be no coal, no power stations, no chemicals used or anything of that nature, because in all those respects the environment is affected.
I do not believe that one can take a true, purist view of conservation because there are other interests to be considered. The whole purpose of this Bill is to allow a balance of those interests. I think my noble friend used a specious argument when he said that he was quite happy for the conservation of birds and wildlife to be equated with tourism and navigation provided that in accordance with the beginning of Clause 2 environmental conservation was given primacy. If that were to happen conservation would take precedence on every occasion when there was any form of conflict. The whole purpose of the Bill is to try to avoid conflict. The whole purpose of the 40 years of work leading up to it was to find some modus operandi. This has been achieved in the Bill and it has to be very carefully protected.
There are two danger areas. One is that it is perfectly possible for somebody to lodge a petition suggesting that conservation should be given primacy. In that case this Bill being a hybrid Bill would go to a Select Committee upstairs. If that happens it is redrawn entirely, goes back to square one and is lost unless the Government give time for

31
it to be pursued further. I doubt whether that will happen. If it goes to a Select Committee and is rejected, there is no point in it going to a Select Committee. All that will be achieved is a great deal of consternation.
It is possible that an amendment will be put down. I urge this thought to be considered. If an amendment is put down which alters the balance of interests, other interests involved in this Bill may feel they have been affected. Any amendment like that may prima facie raise a question of hybridity. The Bill would then have to be referred again to the Examiners. If that happens the Bill is likely to be lost. I hope that wisdom will prevail and that my noble friend will not feel tempted to push it too far. I do not know whether it is his intention to do so, but if he does and this Bill is lost, it will do no good for the conservationists and the cause of conservation which they seek to pursue.
Many people will be very disturbed to see this Bill lost. After all, the whole Bill is about conservation and it is the variety of interests which are concerned. I respect the views of those who feel strongly about conservation. Most people do who live in the countryside; most farmers and most countrymen are concerned about conservation. But one has to accept that there are other interests which have to be considered. I do not believe that one should be given primacy. That is a very dangerous course to be followed and I hope that your Lordships will not be tempted to do so. I hope my noble friend will resist the blandishments and charms of my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa when he says that environmental conservation should be given primacy.
This is a good Bill. It is there to protect and to help the Broads. It is the result of a great deal of work and effort.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister forgive me? I wish to say in the warmest terms to my noble friend Lord Ferrers that he missed the distinction I was drawing between conservation of the environment for the benefit of tourists, boaters, sailors, water skiers and others and the protection of wildlife, which is on a level with tourism.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may say so, I did not misunderstand my noble friend. I understood him perfectly. I just disagreed with him.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the debate which we have just had shows that your Lordships are at one in appreciating that we have been dealing with a Bill which is not only of local interest for all in East Anglia, who are very proud of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads; it is also a matter of national concern.
I agree with those noble Lords who referred in warm terms to the value of the work which the present authority has been doing and also, thinking of the last speech by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, to the value of the work being done by the Great
32
Yarmouth Port and Haven Commissioners. Again we are at one in looking back to the past and thinking that the work which has been done has been of great value.
Although different emphases have been put in this debate on what ought to be done to secure the long-term survival of the Broads areas, we are also at one in realising that something needs to be done. The whole purpose of the Bill and the establishment of a new authority are aimed at providing the means of conserving and managing the Broads in order to give the area the real protection and care that it has not had to date. We feel that such management is essential if the continuing deterioration of the ecology of this unique area is to be halted and reversed.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made it quite clear in his speech that there ought to be a clear priority for conservation over public enjoyment and navigation, the other two functions of the Broads Authority set out in Clause 2. The thrust of the noble Lord's argument was also referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and certainly my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa devoted a great deal of his speech to the same theme. I have to say on behalf of the Government that I believe the balance we have deliberately struck in Clause 2 and elsewhere in the Bill is however, the right one; that is, to put the three functions of the Broads Authority for the future on an equal basis.
The Government would not be promoting this Bill to set up a new statutory authority to manage the Broads if they were not convinced that the area needs special protection, which, sadly it has not enjoyed hitherto. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that arresting and reversing the ecological decline that has taken place over many years, for a complex mixture of reasons, must be one of our primary objectives.
However, I echo my noble friend Lord Ferrers that we really must not disregard or overlook other interests which are equally important in their own way. Navigation and boating, public enjoyment and recreation of all kinds, agriculture and holiday making are all integral features of the Broads around which its economy revolves and on which the future life of the Broads depends. I ask your Lordships, in looking back over this debate, to study carefully the warning which was given in the speech by my noble friend Lord Ferrers about the importance of the balance of interests which the Bill seeks to achieve.
That said, I realise that my noble friend Lady Blatch, while agreeing that the Bill should not be changed with regard to Clause 2, nonetheless urged me to consider a commitment on the lines of what is commonly known as the Sandford principle—so named after my noble friend Lord Sandford since it was a principle given in response to a report made in July 1974 by the National Parks Policies Review Committee, so ably chaired by him.
The general thrust of the Sandford principle is that in cases where the two equal duties—conservation of natural beauty and promotion of public enjoyment—which have been placed on national parks authorities are in irreconcilable conflict, nature

33
conservation should have priority. That is the general thrust of that principle, which is so familiar to many people. However, in answering this debate, and my noble friend, I feel I should quote precisely the words of the Government's commitment of that time, which are contained in paragraph 4 of the annex to a joint DoE/Welsh Office circular, DoE 4/76. The relevant passage reads:
"National Parks Authorities can do much to reconcile public enjoyment with the preservation of natural beauty by good planning and management and the main emphasis"—
I stress those words—
"must continue to be on this approach wherever possible. But even so, there will be situations where the two purposes are irreconcilable. The Secretaries of State accept the Committee's view that where this happens priority must be given to conservation of natural beauty".
I take comfort from the fact that it has never proved necessary in the national parks to legislate for priority of nature conservation over public enjoyment. Moreover, the Sandford principle itself enshrines a clear statement that the main emphasis should be on reconciling these two equal objectives wherever possible. That too, we believe, should be the main emphasis in the Broads. We should not start out with the assumption that there must be conflict and that this conflict will be irreconcilable. If that assumption were correct then the future of the Broads would really be bleak. But I believe that assumption to be wholly wrong and unfounded. The general need to conserve the Broads from ecological decline is, we firmly believe, built into the Bill itself.
Therefore, on this major primacy point I shall, of course, look with great care at what my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa said, particularly in the context of his interpretation of the meaning of conservation; but for the reasons I have just given the Government are extremely chary and careful about upsetting the balance which has been put into Clause 2. However, in looking very carefully at this debate we shall certainly consider with great care what my noble friend Lady Blatch said in pleading the cause of something on the lines of the Sandford principle.
I quickly pick up some other points which have been made in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and my noble friend Lord Buxton intimated that they felt there was insignificant representation for nature conservation. As I endeavoured to indicate earlier, we are aware of the need to reflect in the authority's membership as fully as possible all the diverse interests, both local and national, which have a legitimate claim to be represented and ensure that there is a proper balance among them. We believe that the Bill as drafted achieves this, but I realise there may be other points of view on that.
I make this point to the noble Baroness. The Bill as originally drafted of course gave three places on the new authority to the Countryside Commission because of its very wide-ranging role, particularly in this context, in relation to the Nature Conservancy Council; namely, as regards the functions of the Broads Authority. In the end, the Countryside Commission is to have two places and as the Bill is drafted the Nature Conservancy Council, one. Therefore, the members appointed by the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council already provide for guaranteed
34
representation for those interests and I cannot believe that many of the members appointed by the eight local authorities are not going to give conservation a very large say. They are, after all, the same authorities which, through the existing Broads Authority, have worked so hard to conserve the natural beauty of the Broads.
At the end of the day I realise that this is all a question of balance. I believe that the balance struck in Clause 1 is as near to a very good balance as one can hope to achieve. At any rate, at this stage of the Bill that is what I lay before your Lordships.
The noble Baroness also referred to the land drainage code. We have provided in the Bill that the new authority should have responsibility for drawing up a code of practice for drainage works because of the environmental considerations and I suggest that that is the right thing to do. However, as your Lordships are aware, there are legitimate land drainage interests to be considered. It is therefore surely also right that the issue of the code should be agreed by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Minister of Agriculture not only has departmental responsibility in this field but is also under Section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as your Lordships will remember, required to further the interests of conservation and the environment wherever possible.
Where disputes may arise I realise that these arguments become more finely balanced. The noble Baroness may remember that assurances were given in another place that on any important issues of dispute in relation to the code the Minister of Agriculture would consult my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I believe that that undertaking, which I now repeat in this House, should reassure us that environmental interests will be given all necessary consideration.
The noble Baroness also asked about the financial and accounting arrangements, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, also referred. The Clause 17 arrangements are designed to ring-fence navigation income and expenditure. However, these arrangements must be read with Clause 13, which requires navigation expenditure, taking one year with another, to be balanced, There is a provision in Clause 17 enabling a temporary deficit in the navigation revenue account to be met but there is of course in the short term no other way in which this could be put right. However, the general requirement in this part of the Bill will effectively require repayment out of the navigation charges in due course. If the noble Baroness cares to glance at those clauses again, I believe that she will be satisfied.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, asked me a blunt question. Do the contributing local authorities have some sort of veto on the amount of money which they are going to pay? The authorities' levy, like a county precept, will be enforceable against the local rating authorities from whom it is raised. However, Clause 14(10) requires that at least half of the local authority members must approve the levy.
An important point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and by my noble friend Lady Blatch. It concerned the position of a chief officer, which is

35
not provided for in the Bill at the present time. I believe that both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord thought that it ought to be. The noble Baroness thought that there was a case for the Countryside Commission, with its long experience of dealing with national parks and its responsibilities not only for conservation but also for recreation and public enjoyment in the widest sense, to be able to advise on the appointment of a chief officer for the Broads Authority as it now advises on appointments of national park officers.
As the Bill now stands, there is no specific requirement for such an appointment to be made. When the Government drafted the Bill, and when Norfolk drafted its Bill, none of us thought to include such a provision. However, such a provision would have to be made before we could provide for the Countryside Commission to be consulted about the appointment and its terms and conditions. I shall look at the technical aspect of that matter. But I should like to say that the Government will look as favourably as we possibly can on the suggestion which has been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, asked me two questions. The first concerned water and the second agricultural activities so far as the powers of the new authority are concerned. Perhaps I may take the question of agricultural activities first. We should then look at Clause 5 and the Section 42 powers of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The noble Lord is much more expert in those matters than I. However, the purpose of Section 42 is simply to provide a means whereby national park authorities will be notified of impending agricultural and forestry proposals and can impose a period of delay during which management agreements may be negotiated to obviate any damaging effects of such proposals. Basically that is what Clause 5 brings into play and perhaps we shall return to that area at another stage of the Bill.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I am grateful for that information. However, will the powers to which the noble Lord has referred extend beyond the confines of the Broads area? Will they extend to potential polluters, if I may describe them in that way, who live outside the Broads but whose discharge can have an effect on the water of the Broads?
Lord Belstead: I shall write to the noble Lord. However, I think I am right in saying that the powers of the Broads Authority in Clause 5 extend to the Broads area only.
So far as the noble Lord's second question is concerned, there is a rather different story. The Government have consistently taken the view that it would be inappropriate to seek to give the Broads Authority direct responsibility for water quality and other related matters. As I indicated in my opening remarks, most of the pollutants that enter the Broads rivers do so from outside the area as a result of activities which take place over other parts of Norfolk and Suffolk. It follows that those responsibilities must remain with the authority, which is the Anglian Water Authority, which
36
exercises responsibilities over the whole river basin and catchment area.
However, there is a new duty on the Anglian Water Authority in the Bill to consult the Broads Authority before implementing any measures that would affect water quality in any part of the Broads. Secondly, the Broads Authority is given powers in the Bill as drafted in Schedule 3, paragraph 34 to carry out work to improve water quality and to make financial contributions to others carrying out those works. I am advised that so far as that power is concerned, it would be possible for the authority to contribute to improvements, for instance, in sewage works located outside the Broads whose effluent ends up in the Broads river system.
After 40 years, we shall at last be recognising the Broads as deserving national park status, albeit of a special kind. I join with your Lordships in saying that much credit is due to the Countryside Commission, whose efforts led initially to the preparation of the private Bill, and to Norfolk County Council and the other local authorities who followed the trail so well.
To assist your Lordships in preparation for the next stage of the Bill, I shall make available in the Printed Paper Office explanatory notes on the clauses of the Bill, together with a map of the proposed area of the authority. In the meantime, the Government will consider carefully everything which has been said by your Lordships in this debate. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987
4.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th November be approved. [5th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first of the five Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper and, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak to the remaining four.
These draft instruments form a legislative package of considerable and lasting importance to many millions of people. Not only do they determine the rates of social security benefits which will assist some 70 per cent. of the population; they set the framework for a new and simpler system of income-related help for the least well-off. I know that many of your Lordships have doubts about particular aspects of these reforms. However, I hope that tonight, as we consider the details of the regulations, the House will join with me in welcoming the overall concept of common rules, common rates, common thresholds, and a simpler and more accessible structure for the reformed scheme. The instruments before us are the product of much careful thought and of the hard experience of 40 years of administering social benefits. They mark a return to a coherence of ideas which has, unfortunately, become lost.
I should like first to deal with the normal annual social security uprating order which sets the rate of

37
most benefits for the year commencing the April after it is approved. It will in future years contain also the rates of the reformed benefits, which are set out for the first time in the other instruments before the House. At this stage I should only like to single out two of the vast range of benefits it covers, although obviously I should be happy to respond to others when I wind up this debate.
First, the amount of retirement pension at £41.15 for single people and £65.90 for couples fully honours our commitment to protect the 9.8 million pensioners against rising prices and gets us hack at least to annual uprating for this group. I am well aware that the extra £2.65 a week for married couples and £1.65 for single pensions will be described as penny pinching by the party opposite. However, members of that party hardly speak from a position of strength. They do not tell us that at the end of their period of office pensioners' incomes as a whole had only increased on average by .6 per cent. a year, while over the lifetime of this Government it has increased by 2.7 per cent. a year. Furthermore pensioners' income as a whole has risen, since 1979, twice as fast as the net incomes of the population as a whole. It is nonsense to claim that pensioners have not been able to take a full share in the nation's growing prosperity. That we have achieved this when there are now a million more pensioners than the party opposite had to contend with, and reduced inflation at the same time, is something to boast about.
The other benefit I wish to single out is child benefit. No doubt other noble Lords will wish to do the same. The draft order keeps it at the same cash level as previously, although it does contain increases in one-parent benefit and child dependency additions. I have no reason to blush at that. Both my noble predecessors and I have emphasised over and over again that the Government's objective is to target money to those who need it most and so we have done just that. The 30p per week that increasing child benefit by 4·2 per cent. would have meant would have cost £120 million. We have not only recirculated this money but added more into family credit and a new family premium in income support, which means that around £300 million will be spent on families in lower income groups.
I turn now to the four other regulations in today's series: again, I do not propose to go through them in fine detail. I hope that all noble Lords have the memoranda explaining the individual provisions before them. As I have already said, I am concerned with how these orders fit into the principles underlying the Act. It is widely appreciated that supplementary benefit is a mass of tangled entitlements which are difficult enough for professionals to understand and impossible for claimants. Under the new scheme, these complexities are swept away and the level of support for living expenses will be based simply on age, family circumstances, and the group to which the claimant belongs. This area of simplification is covered in Part 4 of the income support regulations and the associated schedules.
The rules for taking into account things like the surrender value of insurance policies, any local authority discretionary maintenance allowances to
38
someone staying on at school, and all payments in kind, are swept away at a stroke. Good news, my Lords, for claimants and staff alike, because this is simpler and more generous for claimants.
A few moments ago I mentioned targeting and I believe we have achieved that too without asking the kind of intrusive, highly personal questions, which are too often necessary now. Extra help by way of clearly understood premia will go to pensioners, lone parents, families with children and disabled people. I would stress that there are extra resources going into the new scheme. We shall be spending £420 million more next year (including £200 million transitional protection) than if supplementary benefit had continued. Most of this will go to families and people who qualify for the disability premium.
Perhaps I should emphasise that those receiving supplementary benefit, who meet the condition of entitlement to income support, will generally have their benefit level protected. Under the transitional regulations, a draft copy of which is in the Library of the House, we shall provide that people in this position, but who would otherwise lose from the changes, will continue to receive the existing cash value of their benefit support. This will cushion them from the changes in the scheme.
I hope that we shall not hear today the argument put forward in the early days of the right to buy; namely, that because benefits are not linked to specific purposes, claimants will not be able to manage their affairs. What these orders do is to provide recipients of benefits with an income calculated on straightforward and non-intrusive criteria on which they can reasonably be expected to manage. Moreover, the income support rules are more generous to those with savings than ever before, by doubling the upper capital limit to £6,000 with a tapered reduction of benefit for those with savings above £3,000. I believe that that improvement will be widely welcomed.
Another mess, though of a different nature I accept, is housing benefit to which I now turn. This may not be the most expensive of the three income-related benefits but it is certainly the most extensive in scope. If you walk along a street today every third householder is financed by those living in the houses on either side. A staggering 7 million households receive rebate or an allowance towards the cost of their rent and/or rates.
The independent review team, which examined housing benefit in 1984, identified four key problems. First, there was inequity—people treated differently according to whether they are in or out of work or are supplementary or occupational pensioners. Linked to that was complexity. The hybrid housing benefit supplement is perhaps a prime example. Then there is an overall lack of efficiency and effectiveness, with some fairly wide variations in the standard of administration at a local level. Finally, there was concern about the rising costs and case load, something of which we have never made any secret. Although certain adjustments to the scheme which have been made in recent years have begun to stem the tide, we are still faced with a case load which has increased by over a third since 1979, and a cost which

39
has more than doubled even after allowing for inflation. To ignore these trends would, I believe, have been the height of imprudence and irresponsibility.
How have we tackled these problems? Under the new rationale of income-related benefits, all three schemes—income support, family credit and housing benefit—will have the same basic tenets. What this means is that, for the first time, people will be treated on the same basis for housing benefit purposes whatever their circumstances. People on income support, or an equivalent net income, will get the maximum housing benefit while for those with income above that level benefit will taper away according to a simple sliding scale.
Other parts of these regulations—such as those dealing with entitlement to housing benefit, eligible housing costs, claims, and payments—are not significantly different from the exisitng provisions, although in many cases the wording has been improved and matters of doubt resolved. I know that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, will wish to comment on one of these, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say. I shall certainly not duck the issue, nor indeed the other controversial issue about these regulations. It is no secret that the proposed rates within these regulations are consistent with a case load reduction of a little over a million and with a reduction in expenditure of around 12½ per cent. Headline grabbing stuff, my Lords, I agree! However, what those headlines do not say is that Parliament approved the Social Security Bill—now the Social Security Act 1986—knowing full well that reductions of this order would occur. In fact the indicative figures included in the technical annex at that time suggested that the number of losers would be 10 per cent. (1.1 million) more. In other words, there are fewer losers than any of us thought there would be 18 months ago. Therefore, although expenditure on housing benefit is being substantially reduced, the net position of income support recipients will be better than envisaged at the time of the 1986 Act. In other words, I would caution against looking at housing benefit too much in isolation. What matters is claimants' total income.
In summary, we are establishing a much improved and more robust structure for housing benefit, and at the same time going some way—but by no means the whole way—to reverse the massive increase in cost and coverage which has occurred over recent years. But the key to all these reforms is alignment, and I shall turn now to the third leg of the income-related benefit scheme—the new family credit.
Since the 1985 Green Paper, the Government have had as a top priority the need to do more to help low-income families with children. The Family Credit (General) Regulations present the detailed rules for the new benefit focused specifically on this group. The regulations have been framed with two basic considerations in mind. The first is to align the rules for entitlement to family credit as closely as possible to those in housing benefit and income support. This will make the relationship between the benefits much fairer and more comprehensible than at present. The second is to continue the practice of
40
family income supplement of establishing "normal income" and using that to determine benefit at a fixed rate for a fixed period.
I shall not go in depth through the family credit regulations. The net result is to ensure that almost every family with children will be better off taking a job than remaining unemployed. Although much of the detail is common to the other income-related benefit regulations, there are some technical differences to reflect the fact that family credit awards will run unchanged for 26 weeks. The House will clearly be interested in the rates of credit, which are set out in Schedule 4. The adult credit is to be £32·10 for both lone parents and couples. Credits for children are age related and include an amount of £2·55 in place of free school meals and welfare milk. Spread over the year, this is rather more than the average local education authority charge for a fixed price school meal. The threshold, which is the level of net earnings at which maximum credit starts to reduce on a straight line basis, is £51·45. This is aligned with the personal allowance for a couple under income support.
Family credit will represent a valuable improvement in the help available to low income working families with children. Like child benefit it will normally be paid to the mother. We estimate that more than twice as many families will receive family credit as now get family income supplement, and that expenditure on family credit will be over twice as much as on the latter benefit, and the free school meals and free milk which go with it at present.
Finally, I turn to the social security claims and payments regulations. They replace in whole or in part separate provisions in 10 existing statutory instruments. They represent a significant move towards a more readily understood structure.
There are four main changes from current practice. First, they simplify the rules on time limits for claiming benefits, an essential element for efficient administration of the scheme. Secondly, the regulations will end some of the present inconsistencies between the period for which benefits are paid. These regulations will mean that income support and family credit are paid in arrears to nearly all claimants below pension age to harmonise with other benefits. Pensioners and widows, however, will continue to be paid income support in advance, consistent with the rules for retirement pension and widows benefit.
Thirdly, the regulations permit deductions to be made from the main contributory benefits when paid with income support in order to make direct payments to a third party such as a fuel board. This means, for example, that direct payments can now be made in cases of failure to pay fuel and water bills. Finally, the regulations introduce a new provision to enable benefit to be suspended for a limited period of one month in cases where a social security appeal tribunal has made an award and there is a possibility of an appeal to the social security commissioners. Suspension will lapse if the adjudication officer has not given notice within one month of application for leave to appeal.
I have taken up too much of your Lordships' time but the package of orders and regulations we are discussing is of major importance for the future shape of our benefit system. The Government remain of the view that income-related benefits should primarily help the poorest and most vulnerable in society. These regulations are totally consistent with that view. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th November be approved. [5th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am sure that we all thank the Minister for having taken us on this cross-country run around these regulations. We have a heavy workload before us, heavy in more senses than one. These five orders with which we are loaded this afternoon weight 820 grammes, which in my English is nearly two pounds. They are heavier in more ways than the avoirdupois aspect of them. It is right for some of us to protest about the way these matters are being handled. For example, in the other place Members are not being confronted with all five orders at once. They are taking extra time so that the orders may be dealt with in more detail. If the Minister thinks I am trying to make a political point, I must tell him that the impartial Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments said:
"the Committee draw the above draft instruments to the special attention of both Houses on the ground that the timetable adopted for the laying of the instruments and their approval by Parliament has left insufficient time for adequate consideration of them by the Committee".
I am sure that many of us share that thought.
As the Minister has rightly said, about 70 per cent. of our population live in families in receipt of some form of benefit. The regulations will have a widespread impact throughout the country. Our problem is that the policies which have spawned these regulations have been discussed inside and outside Parliament over several years. Our opposition to the Social Security Act 1986 is rooted in our totally different political and philosophical thinking about the social responsibilities which we carry. Therefore I am sure the Minister will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to re-run every aspect of the legislation. However, I must remind the Government that the Act was much criticised for the powers it gave to the Secretary of State to govern more through orders than through primary legislation. Today I consider that the Government have been unfair to this House in having put such a large parcel of orders before us.
I shall try to be as helpful as I can, though I cannot think why, to the Minister. To save time I propose to express the Opposition's views on just certain matters referred to in these documents and to ask the Minister for clarification in some cases. Other of my noble friends will deal with other parts of the legislation. When we take so many orders together it is not always easy to keep a proper sequence, but I shall do my best.
My first query concerns the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987. On page 13 there is a reference to child benefit payments. This matter was discussed following the announcement in the House
42
of the April benefits for 1988 on 27th October. I hope that the Government have taken note of the widespread public concern about the fact that child benefit is not to be up-rated. I noted what the Minister said and I am sure that other Members have taken note of that, but what are we to say to 70 organisations which have come to both Houses with their protests about the failure to up-rate? These are not organisations of militant Trots trying to make political trouble; they are the most respectable organisations, of which I am sure even the Prime Minister would approve. We have had the Mothers' Union, the Save the Children Fund and other organisations which obviously have no political axe to grind but which are very concerned about the impact on families that they are trying to help.
The Minister might think that he is converting the House to his point of view, but he certainly has not converted thousands of people outside who have to deal with the sharp end of these problems.
If I have the figure right, the Minister maintained that child benefit costs the social security budget about £4½ million. In my view this is an accountant's fantasy. Child benefit is different from other benefits in that it is a Treasury matter, because it replaces the child tax allowance. It ought to appear on the treasury accounts and not on the social security budget. The Government talk about targeting help where it is most needed, but they contradict themselves by apparently asserting that tax allowances are good, however rich the families are who will enjoy them, but that benefits are questionable.
A single person's tax allowance has increased by 14 per cent. in real terms since 1979. A married man's allowance has increased by 17 per cent., but child benefit has gone down by about 3 per cent., so couples without children under the Government's so-called family policy are much better off than couples with children. Many of us in all parties thought that the whole object of child benefit was to ensure that families with children had more favourable treatment than couples without children.
The noble Lord referred to the poverty trap. However, there are many families who under these arrangements will fall into the poverty trap; families who are just above eligibility for income assistance—and a quite modestly paid worker might find himself in that position. Such a man might by endeavour and training or working a lot of overtime raise his income. I should have thought that noble Lords opposite would have been glad that people try to improve their circumstances. If he is receiving support through family income supplement or otherwise, then any increase in his salary will be taken into account and deductions made. If, on the other hand, he is above that limit and is getting child benefit, as, of course, he should be, then there is a real increase in his family income because there is no deduction from his child benefit. That is the only benefit from which there is no deduction for people who try to improve the situation for themselves and their families.
On page 13 it is also stated that unemployment benefit will be paid fortnightly in arrears—the noble Lord referred to this—and sickness, invalidity and

43
severe disablement allowance weekly in arrears. I cannot make sense of this. Why is an unemployed man to be paid fortnightly in arrears? Might this not cause some hardship in certain cases? Is this a change from the previous policy? Is the noble Lord sure that such arrears will not cause hardship? When the changeover comes next April, is there likely to be a gap in payments during the switch-over? This worries some of us a great deal. Is the department taking on extra staff to ensure that those arrears are not increased because of administrative delays?
I understand that transitional arrangements are being made. But it appears from col. 606 of the Official Report of another place for 12th November that income support will be paid in arrears, except for pensioners and widows. At present supplementary benefit can be paid in advance, so this seems to be a backward step for claimants. Many staff are anxious about it. They tell me that penniless applicants may well distress them; and, even worse, members of staff in the local offices will have to tell people with no money that they have to go away for seven days.
I must ask the Minister one or two questions about the social fund. The Social Security Advisory Committee was worried about this. It said on page 7 of its fifth report:
"Allowing for the fact that the personal allowances and premiums under income support may absorb some of the current single payments expenditure, we remain firmly convinced that there are many areas of capital expenditure which claimants cannot hope to meet from their weekly benefit, no matter how long the period for repayment of the loan".
I am not asking the Minister to answer me. I am asking him to answer the Government's own advisory committee. I understand from all the pages through which I have ploughed that there is to be a gross budget for the first year of £200 million, of which 70 per cent. is to be in the form of recoverable loans. I make that £60 million in grants, which appears to be a very small budget if it is to cover the whole country. I am not sure whether it includes Scotland and Wales but I understand that separate arrangements are being made for Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us about that. How is this money to be spread around the country? How will applicants in serious trouble avoid delay, especially if appeals are involved, although as we know after long debates in this House there will be no appeal to any independent body?
If the money that is lent is to be recoverable by deductions from benefit, how will people manage? By saying that loans will have to be recovered from benefits the Government are suggesting that people are getting too much benefit already. When benefits are at subsistence level I have to ask whether the Government have given sufficient consideration to the dangerous poverty and deprivation that may well confront many people? What will happen if the £200 million runs out before the end of the year? Many of these points are not answered even after the most conscientious reading of all this documentation.
I am sorry to ask the noble Lord some more questions but it is the fault of those who have brought five big books before the House this afternoon. I am sorry for him—almost as sorry as I am for myself. I
44
gather that in order to help people pay the 20 per cent. of their rates, which we know is government policy, there will be a payment of £1·30 for couples and £1 for single people. On what basis has this £1·30 been worked out? There are many places in this country where 20 per cent. of the rates is a good deal more than £1·30 a week. What will happen to people who through no fault of their own live in areas where 20 per cent. of the rates will be much more than £1·30? From where are they to get the money? Is it not a fact that in practice part of it will come from a deduction of 50 per cent. from the income support rates?
I should like to say a few words about the disabled. This is not a political point. We had long debates in the House on this subject and it was largely as a result of the work here that the Government agreed to a special severe disability allowance. How can the noble Lord answer the very large numbers of organisations which work for the disabled and which are at the coalface, as it were, in this work? They have no political axe to grind and only want things to be better for the people they are trying to help. They cannot all be wrong. It is too easy for the Government to concentrate on cases where there will be some improvement and not answer the real fears of those organisations which feel that for new applicants especially there will be a drop in support.
I want the Minister to clarify one point, because we must get this right. In col. 743 of the Official Report of another place for 2nd November 1987, the Minister there, when talking about the disabled, said:
"People who would otherwise have received many additional requirements will receive less benefit than their predecessors receive at the moment. I am conscious of that … However, we are referring to very few people".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/87; col. 743.]
How few is few? If it is only one, it is one too many. The organisations seem to believe that thousands of disabled will be affected.
My confusion is increased because on 3rd June 1985, at col. 49 of the Official Report, the then Minister, the right honourable Member for Sutton Coldfield, said:
"We shall ensure that the structural changes will not result in cash losses by those who are now in receipt of supplementary benefit".
There is some justifiable confusion which I think the whole House would like to be cleared up.
My noble friend will be asking some relevant questions on housing benefit. I do not see why I should apologise for having kept the House for so long. If I went line by line through this two pounds of paper I could have asked a hundred or more questions. I realise that there will be other opportunities and I assure the noble Lord that we shall not let these matters rest. We shall monitor carefully what happens. I hope that he will try to find answers to these questions because for so many of these people they are not political points but anxieties about their lives, their standard of living and the prospects for their children and how they are going to manage. Those are sincere anxieties and I hope the Minister will take that on board.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his exposition of

45
these orders and regulations. He has, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, pointed out, had rather a wide field to cover. In addition to the usual annual up-rating order we have these regulations for the new income-related benefits with means-tested benefits which are to be introduced in April. They include for the first time the actual rates that are going to be paid.
I turn first to the up-rating order, and that is fairly routine. It increases national insurance benefits by 4.2 per cent. to take account of higher inflation, although I have noted that since this was done inflation has risen to 4.5 per cent., and therefore these new rates will to that extent be inadequate. They will cost about £780 million a year, but we should bear in mind when thinking about that sum—that is the cost of the increase—that national insurance benefits are paid for by earnings-related contributions, and we know that earnings have been increasing faster than prices and so we would expect a buoyant revenue under the scheme.
I should like to draw attention again to the position of the basic retirement pension. Before the present Government came into office the increase in pensions each year was linked to the increase in earnings or the increase in prices, whichever was the higher. The Government objected to the fact that there is in theory a ratchet effect from this arrangement, and they could visualise that if prices increased some years faster than earnings (and in some years it was the other way round) that the ratchet effect would result in a continual increase in the proportion of average earnings which was represented by the basic pension. Of course we all know that earnings have in fact been increasing the whole time faster than prices, and so there has been no sign of any ratchet effect in recent years.
However, that fear led the Government to break the link with earnings. When the Government did that they were careful to say that pensioners would receive through the basic pension—never mind their other income—a share in any increased prosperity that there was. But of course as a result of breaking the link, and the fact that no steps have been taken to ensure that that share is passed on, pensions have been falling behind. A research note from the Library of another place in May of this year pointed out that the basic pension had increased in real terms by 2.2 per cent. between November 1978 and April 1987, while earnings during that same period had increased in real terms by 40.2 per cent. The value of the single pension has dropped as a proportion of average male earnings during that same period from 20.4 per cent. to 17.7 per cent., and I believe that now it is down to 17.2 per cent.
Therefore pensioners, through the basic pension, are not getting an increased share; they are in fact getting a lower share, yet this at a time when the Government are reducing further the Treasury contribution to the national insurance fund. It was at 18 per cent. of contributions when they came to power; it is now reduced to 6 per cent. This is a time when the public sector borrowing requirement, having been estimated at a given figure, is proving to be much less. This is a time when the Government talk a great deal about the comparative prosperity, as they see it, of this country compared with other
46
similar countries. When is there going to be a better time to ensure that pensioners, through the basic pension, receive a share in the general prosperity? I am sure that the Minister realises that the basic pension will wither away gradually over the years unless pensions are allowed to catch up with earnings, and when will the Government begin that process?
Now perhaps I may turn to child benefit. I have already stated in this House that we on these Benches very much regret the fact that this year there is to be a decrease in the real value of child benefit. There was a similar decrease in 1985 and the child benefit is now some 65p lower than it should be if it is to keep up with the increase in prices; if it is to keep up with inflation. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has pointed out that the child benefit was introduced partly to replace family allowances but partly to replace income tax allowances for children, and that therefore one would expect it to go up as the other personal allowances go up. However, as she pointed out, the reverse has been the case. It has gone down as the value of the other allowances has gone up. The Government expect that two out of five who could claim family credit—which is to replace family income supplement—will not in fact do so. Those people will lose out as a result of the freezing of child benefit.
We on these Benches have regarded child benefit as the first tax credit in what we hoped would be a tax credit system, and we should like to convert the other personal allowances into similar credits. The Government have said that they have been able to put £120 million towards increasing support through family income supplement and family credit as a result of freezing child benefit. But it would be just as logical to reduce the single person's allowance, or to reduce the married man's allowance, in order to pay for that help. Surely any increase of that kind ought to come from general taxation.
Let me now turn from the up-rating order (which is concerned with benefits paid as of right) and turn to the new regime for means-tested benefits, income support, family credit, and housing credit. Let me say straight away what I have said before: we welcome the fact that here would be a better alignment —as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said —between the three benefits themselves and between them and the tax system. That is an important improvement.
Nevertheless, the principal objections that we expressed when the Social Security Bill 1986 was before the House remain. We are concerned that the replacement of special payments by premiums will leave some people much worse of. We cannot see the sense in compelling people on benefit to pay 20 per cent. of their rates. We think it is wrong to insist that income support for young, single childless adults under 25 should be less than for those above that age. We do not think that there should be two classes of adult. We share the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, about the way in which the social fund will operate with loans replacing grants. We are concerned too about the effects of the new tapers in housing benefit, particularly on pensioners.
I understand that there will be 3,190,000 gainers as a result of the new regime but that, there will be

47
3,650,000—a slightly larger figure—losers. But the total expenditure on the three benefits will be about the same. The Government may say that it is better distributed, and that it is going towards those who are not so well off, but it is by no means clear that that will always be the case. In so far as it is the case, what they are engaged upon is a redistribution from the poor to the poorer. They are financing the extra help for the poorest by taking from those who have very small incomes but who get some benefit, particularly from housing benefit, at the moment. Looking at income support, it seems that the personal allowances as set out in the technical annex to the White Paper in November 1985 have not been fully up-rated in line with inflation since then. They appear to be some 2 to 3 per cent. less in value. I wonder why that is. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister can explain.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, pointed out that the Secretary of State has said that there is compensation in the personal allowance for the 20 per cent. payment of rates: £1 for single persons under 25 and £1.30 per week for others. But we do not really know how the personal allowances are constructed. What is the breakdown for the different elements that have to be met? Does it mean anything to say that compensation is included for rates if the allowances have not been fully up-rated for inflation? Is it correct that the lower rate of compensation for the under-25s is based on the assumption that the majority of people in that group are non-householders? Is it not a fact that in 1985 there were 100,000 householders under the age of 25?
The family premium which is paid with income support is set at £6.15, which just up-rates the original figure of £5.75 to take account of inflation. However there was a widespread feeling that £5.75 was not enough. Will not this mean lower incomes for many families with children than they would receive under the present system? The all-party House of Commons Social Services Select Committee stated this:
"The family premium must be set at a level at least high enough to compensate for the loss of additional requirements"—
the special additional weekly payments—
"and single payments".
It is true that in 1983 three-quarters of families with children on supplementary benefit received one or more of these additional weekly requirement payments; and two-thirds of all single payments went to families with children. It has been estimated in research done from the Policy Studies Institute that the loss of single payments under supplementary benefit is equivalent to £4.15 per week on average. That is the loss sustained on average by the withdrawal of single payments.
If we take that into account and consider an unemployed man with two children aged four and six, and if we assume that he has one of these additional requirements of £4.40 for heating, and if we add in the £4.15 for the loss of the single payment, and £1.87 for the payment of water rates, we find that the figure of weekly payment is £82.87. Yet I understand that under the new arrangements it will be £79.10; that is, £3.77 per week less. I should like to ask whether the Minister would agree that that is a fair comparison.
48
There has been the fear that some disabled people with several additional requirements will be worse off—some of them considerably worse off. That has led the organisations which represent disabled people to ask that new claimants should be able to claim under either the old arrangement of additional requirements or the new arrangement of disability premium or severe disability premium, and be allowed to take whatever would be the higher of those two assessments. They have also asked whether current claimants, who will receive the transitional protection to which the noble Lord the Minister referred, will have that transitional protection index-linked. If it is not, then they gradually reduce to the new lower level which new claimants would have.
We are concerned about the effect of the new housing benefit tapers on pensioners and we understand that 280,000 of them will be worse off in real terms.
We are also concerned about the position of people who come to this country seeking asylum who are to receive, while they are waiting for their case to be decided, 90 per cent. of the benefit instead of 100 per cent., although the average time that they can be waiting for their case to be decided is 13 months. I should like to ask why there is that reduction for those people.
I think that I have said enough to indicate that there are grounds for apprehension and concern about how the new regime will work in practice. We shall, as the noble Baroness said, have to monitor its operation with great care and attention to detail, in order to see whether the declared aims of the Government, which sound so fine, bear any close relation to what is happening in practice.
5.35 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has already said, I am going to say a word about the housing benefit regulations. At one time I toyed with the idea of praying against them but I have decided not to because it would seem really rather like throwing out not only the bath water but the bath too in order to get rid of one very nasty little baby. The small nasty baby is in Schedule 1, paragraph 1(c) under which dispersed alarm systems are to be specifically excluded from housing benefit for those who live in their own homes, although subsidy will continue for those who live in sheltered housing or purpose-built accommodation. The essence of dispersed alarms is flexibility of installation anywhere where someone who is at risk is living. They are also easily removed if no longer required. It really is ludicrous to limit support to the type of housing rather than to people in need.
The Government say that under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 local authority social services have a duty to provide these alarms where need has been determined. This is perfectly true, but a number of local authorities have already said that after the regulations come into force they will no longer be able to provide them for those who cannot afford to pay the service charge or rent themselves, because they, the local authorities, do not have enough money. I would be interested to know,

49
and I hope the Minister can tell me, how the Government, who are taking the line that no one should suffer under the new regulations, propose to force local authorities to carry out their duty in this respect, or, if they cannot, how they are going to make sure that no one is going to suffer.
In the first place, this seems extraordinarily shortsighted on the part of the Government since the cost of an alarm is under £5 per week, whereas the cost of sheltered accommodation is far greater, and nursing home accommodation can cost up to £175 per week. That was this year; it will be more next year.
Secondly, the Government say they are committed to care in the community. Withdrawing subsidy through housing benefit flatly contradicts their stated intentions. They say they want benefits targeted to the most needy. Withdrawing the funding of emergency alarms is taking away a major form of relatively inexpensive assistance from a highly vulnerable group. Many of those who have these alarms, or were hoping to get them, are deeply distressed at the possibility of not having them, and various bodies which organise the provision of them are greatly concerned for those who need them and face losing them.
I ask the Government again to lose no time in providing some certain alternative means of funding for them, and, pending doing so, either to continue assistance through housing benefit or to find some other means of assisting those on low incomes during the interim period.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his lucid exposition of the vast and complex range of regulations. I welcome them because I believe that the Government are right to review the working of the vast system of administration. It spends nearly one-third of the total national budget in order to provide help for those in need. I believe that if they had failed to carry out the review of the past three years they would have been at fault.
The product of their review appears in the regulations which we are debating. I have listened to the cogent expressions of anxiety felt across the board which have been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks. The special point which the noble Baroness sought to express will no doubt be dealt with by my noble friend but it is way beyond me.
I should like to refer to a point raised by the noble Baroness as regards the Government's decision not to up-rate child benefit. That seems to me to be sensible. I do not see that it is good sense or good housekeeping for the Government to pay extra child benefit to many millions of families who do not need it. It is far better that whatever public money is available should go to those who are in need. We have been told specifically that there will be an increase in family credit of £220 million a year and in family income support of £100 million a year; a total of £320 million. That will ensure that families in need will receive something extra for their children. The whole package put forward by the Government will cost an extra £500 million and it adds substance to
50
their statement that this is not a cheese-paring exercise. As the Government see it, it is an attempt to distribute the money available most effectively to those who need it most.
I understand that the review of procedures is welcome and I believe that it is good sense. There has been a tremendous volume of complaint as regards the working of the old scheme which was vastly complex. I understand that there were no fewer than 16,000 regulations—perhaps with a few gaps here and there—and it must have been a nightmare for the administrators. It seems rudimentary to attempt to simplify the regulations, and especially to make the assessment on the same basis, and it is extraordinary that it has not been done before. Undoubtedly, there must have been many cases where families in receipt of the same income and in the same circumstances were treated differently. We hope that such anomalies will be removed under the new regulations.
I should like to comment on the housing benefit regulations because evidently it was a tough decision for the Government to make. The cost of the scheme, which was £1·2 million in 1979–80, and which was paid to approximately 5 million families, last year rose to over £5 billion and it was paid to 7 million families—that is, one in three of all the households in the country. It cannot be right that public funds should be paid in the form of housing benefit to an ever increasing number at a time when as a nation we are becoming better off across the board. There can be no doubt that those at the top end of the income scale in receipt of the benefits have been paying taxes in order to finance their own benefits. That must be the worst kind of administration, costly to carry out and wrong in principle as a use of public funds.
I agree with the noble Baroness that there is a basic difference in political philosophy between Labour policy on such matters and our own. I believe that the Government were right to change the practice. There may inevitably be some hard cases which arise in the considerable redistribution. However, they can be compensated under either the income support scheme or the family credit scheme. I believe that to be the right way of dealing with the matter.
The housing benefit scheme is to be seen against the background of the Government's general policy to reduce taxation in the belief that it strengthens the incentive to work and to save and, therefore, at the end of the day it makes the community better off. We must always watch inflation. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, with his long experience in the other House, will remember that the nation suffered desperately during the last decade of high inflation. In terms of overall budgeting, good housekeeping must be basic to every government. Although some of the decisions appear to be tough, I believe that at the end of the day the country will benefit because inflation will be kept to a manageable level of approximately 4 per cent. I should like to see it decrease further because not only does that preserve the value of the benefits but, equally important (especially for pensioners, 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. of whom have savings of their own) it preserves the value of savings and the income from those savings. That is an important part of their total income.

51
I should like to say to my noble friend and to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State that I welcome the regulations. The Secretary of State has stood up well to the detailed cross-examination to which he was properly subjected in the other place. I believe that he has satisfied most people of the fact that the scheme, under the vast fundamental revision, is well conceived, although it creates many anxieties, and will provide benefit. If hard cases come to light, it is sufficiently flexible for those to be catered for. On balance, it will benefit those who are most in need and it has my support.
5.49 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that my name does not appear on the list of speakers. I notified the noble Lord that I wished to make a short speech. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, but I shall be no more than a few minutes.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, I found the number of books alarming to read. However, I am concerned with the housing benefit regulation and I should like to support the point made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. I am concerned with page 56, Schedule 1, paragraph (c) dealing with the changes in respect of the emergency alarm services. I should like to ask the Minister to reconsider the paragraph which provides that grants under the system will no longer be awarded. The system is vital for old people living alone, for the handicapped and for those who we do not wish to go into hospitals or homes but who we wish to be able to live on at home.
The system works well. It is economical and it is better to keep people in their own homes, even if they are drawing social services benefit or being visited by social services employees, than to put them into hospitals where they cost at least £400 a week and where they are not nearly so happy. As we all know, a lot of old people are much happier on their own so long as they can be cared for and looked after. This sytem, which has worked so well so far, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun said, is very inexpensive and simple. It can be carried through without any trouble and should be continued under these regulations.
I have read the regulations with some care, and at this point there seems to be no reason at all for changing them. It will not make anybody any better off and will probably cost a great deal more. I am very keen on the system which keeps people in their own homes and does not send them to institutions of any kind. That is something that we have been able to do successfully. If we give up that system then many of those people will not be able to afford the emergency services. They will not be able to live by themselves because there is a risk that they might fall down and be unable to get up or that they might have a sudden heart attack and the like. They will not be able to manage unless they have those services.
I hope that when the Minister is considering this matter, he will think about this very small but very important point. It is a point of economic value, and will serve hundreds—perhaps even thousands —of handicapped people, both young and old. I hope very much that he will reconsider this arrangement.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his remarks when introducing this package of measures, whose weight has already been referred to and whose price—£25 almost—is nearly as heavy. There will not be many local claimants who are able to buy a set of regulations in order to read them. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, that I am only too pleased that she was able to intervene, particularly as I agree with every word she uttered. I am very grateful that she spoke.
I must take up one or two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I shall come later to the subject of pensions, although the noble Lord, Lord Banks, went into the issue in some depth and has almost wiped out a chunk of what I wanted to say. The effect of these orders on pensioners is so obvious and well known that I had hoped the Minister would not bring out such a hoary old chestnut and repeat how well off they are and how much better off under this Government than they were under the previous Government. It does not mean anything and it is not true, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, pointed out and as I shall shortly reiterate.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, touched on the impact of the change. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, also mentioned the possibilities inherent in the change. As he said, it is difficult at this stage to know what the impact will be. However, we have enough experience of previous regulations to know the kind of impact that will emerge from these regulations. From discussions with the people who are bound to implement them—social workers, and so on—some constructive guesses can be made about how they will work.
For instance, as mentioned by the noble Lord, there is the effect of removing the single payments and the right of people to claim under a scheme in which the criteria are clearly set out in regulations. People knew exactly to what they were entitled when they made a claim. Under the new regulations that has all disappeared; the single payments have been abolished. In fact, most claimants will be worse off as a result of the abolition of single payments. More people will be poorer. We know that that will be the result.
We know, too, that people will sink deeper into debt as a result of the application of the social fund. Sadly, there are already far too many people in debt under the existing regulations and because of previous cuts; but the position will get worse because people who are hard up or broke and in real difficulty will borrow money. In the inner city areas there are far too many loan sharks prepared to lend money at fabulous rates of interest and so thrust poor people into more debt and misery. That is another obvious impact of the kind of approach laid down in these regulations.
We know, too, that the social security officers will now be given the right to decide which are deserving cases. That is explicit in the regulations. One does not have to be very clever to understand the impact of that. It means that if the officers are to carry out their duties properly, they will need to pry much more

53
deeply into people's affairs. I understand that they will be able to ask questions such as: "Have you any relatives who will help you out with this problem before you come to me?" They will be able to go into such detail to see whether any payment from the fund can be avoided. If the claim fails they will refer people to the voluntary organisations and the charities, who also are very short of resources and will be unlikely to be able to help. As I said, people will not know to what they are entitled under these regulations. Worse still, as the noble Baroness pointed out, the fund will be limited and if cash runs out before claims have been met, it is just hard luck. There is no further provision, there is no more money in the fund, and it is just too bad.
One of the more serious implications that can clearly be seen was again mentioned by the noble Lord; namely, that there will no longer be the possibility of an appeal. People will not be able to appeal in the way that they have done for the past 50 years. That recourse will no longer exist. The social security manager will simply have power to reconsider the decision of his junior officer. As anyone who lives in the real world knows, it will seldom happen that a social security manager will query his junior officer's decision. That is another impact.
We also know that it is the most vulnerable people who will be at risk from the confusion and chaos that will arise from these regulations. For instance, there will be confusion resulting from the differences in interpretation about old people's heating. Previous speakers have mentioned the special needs of the disabled and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, raised the question of families with young children who will have less money because the present power of the DHSS in special circumstances and emergency situations will be severely limited. So we are aware of some of the impacts of the changes. I only noted down a few of them when noble Lords were speaking but there are many others which will become clear when the new regulations begin to operate.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, referred to an issue that she raised a few months ago in a Question to the Minister. I supported her then and I support her now. She is absolutely right. As the noble Lady pointed out, there is no reason at all for the Government not to accept the proposals made by her. I think that the Minister should be able to tell us that he does accept them.
I do not suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and I will ever agree politically or philosophically. We do not even agree about inflation, on which there are two schools of thought, one of which believes that the price of lowering inflation below a certain rate may be too high in terms of unemployment, loss of jobs and social cost. We have to take that into account in our application of priorities. The Minister talks about redistribution, which is a wonderful word. In the context of these orders it means that we are redistributing the cuts that have been made in the benefits to the poor, in order to give out benefits in the form of tax reductions to those who do not need them. That is redistribution that the Minister did not mention, but that is the real nub of the difference between myself and him.
54
I want to turn now to one or two points of my own.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way for one moment, please. I made the point, of which I am sure he took note, that the total package is making available an extra £5 million per annum. So it really cannot be said the changes are going to release public money which can then be redistributed as cuts in taxation.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I can only say to that, we are not sure about that total package cost, either. There are so many figures and statistics. I have avioded using some because there are so many different interpretations. It would be dangerous to repeat them. Even having said that, we still do not know how much the Chancellor is going to have out of all his machinations to redistribute in tax cuts to those people I mentioned who do not need them. I think the question is academic at this stage; but we shall come back to that no doubt as it develops.
Perhaps I can come back to the first point the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, mentioned, the question of pensions. We have to start at 1979, as far as this particular saga is concerned because it was almost as soon as the results of the 1979 general election had been announced that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in the first Budget showed us the direction and the approach that the Government intended to take on the question of social security. He then announced, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, the breaking of the link between pensions and earnings.
This was taken up in the 1980 Social Security Act, and we spent long, long nights and long days (as other Members who were involved will probably remember) on that. However the break has meant—and I shall not repeat all the statistics—that a single person would now be getting £27·90 instead of £23·75. That is a difference of £4·15. A married couple would now be receiving £74·55 instead of £63·25. That is a difference of £11·30.
These are quite significant figures if you are at that level of income. It is no good just glossing over them and saying: "Because we gave them more than the previous government gave them …". These are the actual figures. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, reminded us that the Secretary of State for Social Security, when he spoke in the debate on the 13th June 1979, said:
"I should like to make it clear, however, that it remains the Government's firm intention that pensioners and other long-term beneficiaries can confidently look forward to sharing in the increased standards of living of the country as a whole. That has always been the intention and the achievement of Conservative Governments. It remains the intention of the present Government."—[Official Report, Commons; col. 439.]
But the link with earnings has never been restored. Pensioners and other claimants are still "looking forward to sharing in the increased standard of living".
As has been said, the single pension in 1979 was 21·1 per cent. of the average male earnings, and now it is 17·2 per cent. I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Banks, for his up-to-date figure. It does not matter how you juggle statistics, those are facts. It was 23·1 per cent.; it is now 17·2 per cent. That is

55
quite a massive reduction in their standard of living on anybody's statistics.
We know, too, that the result of that cut—and many others that followed it right across that whole spectrum of benefits—was a saving of over £8 billion to the Exchequer, most of it at the expense of those who could least afford it. Worse still, it was a diminution of the whole principles of social security as we had come to know them. The cuts have gone on, there have been about 46 major changes since then, and many more consequential changes. The savings have mounted still further, and the Government's real intention (which is the eventual break up of the whole system of benefits that comprise the welfare state) is now only too clear so far as I am concerned.
Noble Lords who have participated in debates on these questions in your Lordships' House before will recall that all parties on this side of the Chamber have objected most strongly about the methods used by governments to announce changes in social security. A series of vague, panicky, ill thought out Bills, often guillotined in the other place, always full of references to unavailable regulations and massive new powers to the Secretary of State, followed by statutory instruments and orders giving details of corrections and changes omitted from the Bills, rushed through the other place and then agreed here without any right to amend them or to vote. A totally unsatisfactory method of determining the quality and standard of life of millions of our citizens.
This approach to social security legislation has been accompanied by cuts in staff at the benefit offices, massive disruption has been caused, almost constant industrial unrest, confusion in administration of new benefits, because of overloading of remaining staff, and inevitably, even more confusion, fear and hardship to hundreds of thousands of people, and to the voluntary organisations who are trying to help them. Now we have another set of statutory instruments. Those are more regulations which should have been debated, and should have been made available in time for the 1986 Bill when it was going through your Lordships' House.
I want to spend just a few minutes on one set of regulations; the housing benefit. I know that other noble Lords have mentioned this. Housing benefit is a good example of the kind of legislative approach that I have just outlined. The introduction was a disaster; the first months were characterised by errors in assessments, breakdowns in computers, widespread delays in payments causing increased rent arrears, threats of evictions to claimants and total confusion for claimants and administrative staff generally. The introductory arrangements themselves had to be rearranged twice. Even then, some local authorities still failed to make the deadline, and for a further year cases were still awaiting assessment.
In my view it has never operated satisfactorily, even now. The Government dismissed these difficulties as teething troubles. The Times described it as the biggest administrative fiasco in the history of the welfare state. The Institute of Housing called it an administrative nightmare. The National Citizens'
56
Advice Bureaux argued that it was unworkable. By August 1984, 25 sets of regulations and 20 circulars had been issued.
Further regulations were introduced in 1985, then in 1986 and again at the beginning of this year. From next April, we have a complete restructuring of the housing benefit scheme. That is not to put right the problems that I have just mentioned; but purely to effect still more savings in the social security expenditure.
Previous changes have been debated and an attempt made to amend the legislation, but to no avail. Hundreds of thousands of claimants have suffered losses in benefit, and thousands have become ineligible for any benefit at all as a result of a repeated stepping up of the tapers (that is the rate of withdrawal of benefits), and adjustments to the calculation of income, and of disregards at the same time.
Now these regulations step up the withdrawal rates yet again. While it is true that the basis of assessment has been changed from gross income to net income, any benefit that that may have had has been negatived because of the interim changes that took place earlier this year. It has been estimated that for a typically low paid worker the loss will still be in the region of 13p in the pound as compared with the position in mid-1986. Rate rebates, as have been mentioned, will also be reduced by these regulations to 80 per cent. of rates as opposed to the 100 per cent. that exists now in the housing benefit regulations. The remaining 20 per cent. will have to be found by even the poorest of claimants—even those on income support.
We were told that these basic allowances would include an average amount for compensation. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, put a figure to that compensation. However, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, no details have ever been made available. How has it been worked out? I think that we are entitled to know, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to give us some information on that tonight.
But in any case, any average amount will not help those people who are trapped in areas of high need which have higher than average rates. For example—dare I mention?—the average rate in Camden is £14·58 per week. Twenty per cent. of that is £2·92. The average rate in the Rhondda is £2·98 per week. Twenty per cent. of that is 60p. So from the same total income of £33·40—that is, the income support rate for a single unemployed person aged 25 or over—there is a vast difference between £2·92 and 60p. Certainly if you are a claimant there is a huge difference. So there is an unanswerable case for rebates to continue to be based on actual rates and to end this type of discrimination. Again, I hope the noble Lord will be able to say that that will be reconsidered. The regulations also introduce for the first time—and the noble Lord glossed over this—on housing benefit anyway a capital limit. He tried to make a virtue of it, and it may well be on some of the other benefits, but on this benefit it is the first time that a capital limit has been introduced.

57
At present housing benefit takes account of only the actual income generated by capital saved up—that is, the difference—but in future there will be standard reductions for savings over £3,000. For every £250 of savings there will be £1 per week of notional stoppages up to £6,000 and at £6,000 the benefit will disappear completely. It is completely cut off. These are facts that have been written down in the papers before us.
Most organisations have said that they cannot understand why this change has been introduced. Age Concern summed up a general view by saying that it is unable to support regulations which penalise elderly people for having been thrifty in saving for their retirement. I think that is how a lot of those people will see it too. Thousands of pensioners will lose benefit as a result. To say that savings must be treated in the same way for housing benefit as for income support cannot be justified and the existing method should in my view be retained.
Finally, I should like again to repeat that I support entirely the case made out by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, on the question of alarms and I hope we shall get a positive response to that. The changes outlined in these regulations are expected to reduce the number of housing benefit recipients by 1 million and, according to a Conservative Party Members' brief that I saw on the up-rating Statement, the savings produced by the revised housing benefit scheme alone will be around £650 million. That is the real reason for the restructuring of the housing benefit scheme. All in all these latest cuts amount to a fairly shabby and squalid attack on the poorest people in the community, while at the same time handing out further tax reductions to—and looking for more tax reductions for— those least in need. It is my hope that public opinion, when alerted to the effects of these cuts, will persuade the Government to have another rethink. Rest assured, my Lords, we shall certainly return to these issues as and when the opportunities arise.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this has been an important and wide-ranging debate and we have heard a number of thoughtful contributions from different parts of this House. We are of course covering a number of important, technically complex and sometimes controversial issues in these regulations. However, if I were to concentrate on the speech of just one noble Lord I should be here for a good 20 minutes, and if I were to concentrate on those many points made by all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate I should be here for well over an hour, which I do not think would be a proper use of the time of the House. Nonetheless, I shall do my best to return to the particular issues that have been raised.
But, first, I simply re-affirm that what we have today is more than a rag-bag of unrelated proposals. In spite of what the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said, the regulations taken together constitute a serious attempt to overhaul the creaking structure of social security, to create a more consistent and coherent structure, to simplify it, to make it more
58
understandable and not least to ensure that the huge resources which the system consumes are indeed directed to those with the greatest needs.
Of course achieving these aims—which I think have been widely welcomed—cannot be straightforward and I accept that in the process of change there will be some who do less well than if we had simply carried forward the present obscure structure unchanged. I disagree therefore with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. But I think that in the end when we look back on the changes we will see them as a major achievement and a major improvement over what we have today.
I think it is worth remembering that in the next financial year, for the first time ever, we shall be spending £48½ billion. So the idea of cuts in a general sense must clearly be ridiculous, although I fully take the point, which was explained very well by my noble friend Lord Nugent, that where we have found it necessary to take the knife— for example, in housing benefit for the more well-off—we have not hesitated to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, repeated a complaint of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments that it did not have enough time to consider the regulations properly. That is a freestanding committee of both Houses, as the noble Baroness will know, and it is entirely up to it—indeed, it has done so on other occasions—to deign not to report, which is a very much more serious matter than what it has actually said. But I would point out that had we delayed parliamentary consideration for longer there would have been less time to prepare for the actual changeover next April.
I think that the noble Baroness asked questions of detail about training for the social security desk officers who are going to operate the changeover. I can say that this is going ahead very well. Extra staff have been employed to achieve it and I have no doubt that we shall be ready on time. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, zeroed in on the incomes of pensioners and the difference between prices and earnings as a basis for calculation. There is more than one way of ensuring that pensioners have a secure retirement and that is surely the objective of all sides of the House.
I would remind the House that we are spending £18·5 billion this year on pensions and the uprating increases before us will add another £780 million to that staggering bill. Against this background of high public expenditure, and particularly against the background of pensioner income rising in real terms by more than double the rate for the population as a whole, we do not believe it is justifiable to increase pensions by more than the increase in prices on this occasion. I accept that if pensions had been increased in line with earnings in recent years, the level would now be higher. But the fact remains that pensioners' incomes have risen both in real terms and as a proportion of the net incomes of people in work, without the need for higher expenditure on the basic pension. Pensioners have shared in higher living standards, which was, I think, the promise we made—
Lord Banks: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that there are some pensioners who have no income

59
other than the pension? Are they not entitled to a share in the prosperity?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is a very valid debating point, but pensioners are backed up by income support where that is necessary. I am sure that the noble Lord's question, as usual, has a lot more implications than the ones which are obviously apparent and I shall therefore consider the question which he has just asked me.
Up to the latest date to which incomes can be fully compared, pensioners' incomes rose more rapidly than those of people in full-time work—a point I made in my opening speech. Pensions are only about half of pensioners' total incomes. Changes in the relationship between basic pension and average gross earnings say nothing about real changes in pensioners' wealth.
I turn now to family credit and the poverty trap. Family credit will end the worst of the poverty trap by calculating it and housing benefit on the basis of net income; that is, after tax and national insurance deductions. No employee should find that reduced benefits leave him worse off as a result of higher earnings, which can happen at present over a wide range of earnings. We recognise that more people are going to have higher marginal tax rates but below 100 per cent.—a piece of technicality which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will appreciate. This is unavoidable if we are to target help to those most in need. But there will still be a delay of up to five months before higher earnings reduce family credit. The simpler structure with a clear relationship between gross earnings and overall income will improve incentives to increase effort and rewards.
On a point of detail, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, suggested that child benefit would not reduce the income of someone in relatively low paid work but it would of course reduce family credit and leave such a family no better off.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and several other noble Lords raised matters relating to the social fund. While I should be delighted to debate the social fund, it is the subject of a different order, which, I understand, is to be laid before the House fairly shortly. However, for now the total sum available for community care grants and loans at £203 million is comparable to the expected level of expenditure on single payments this year.
The House is clearly worried by the subject of the compulsory payment of 20 per cent. of rates for people who receive income related benefits. I make the point because it is now law that it is for local authorities to recognise the impact their spending plans have on low income ratepayers. That is the whole point of accountability.
I accept the distinct examples that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, raised on the position of a claimant in Wales compared with that of a claimant in, say, Sheffield or Greater London, but the whole objective of the exercise is to make the local voter closer to the actions of his or her local authority.
This House rightly prides itself on its care and support of the long-term sick and the disabled.
60
Therefore I was more than a little surprised when neither the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, nor the noble Lord, Lord Banks, pressed me on that unfortunate group of people when questioning me on the annual up-rating statement the other day. In relation to the reformed benefit schemes the great majority of the 270,000 sick and disabled people on income support will either do better or experience no financial change. Some 70 per cent. will gain in real terms at an average rate of £5 a week. The system will be simpler and instead of a host of special additions which the disabled person may or may not claim there will be a straightforward disability premium paid at two rates.
This House has good reason to be proud of the higher rate of £24·75, which will give appreciable extra help to the relatively small number of disabled people, about 7,000, who have very substantial needs. It results of course from an amendment successfully moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, during the passage of the 1986 Social Security Act. When the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, makes the point that it is impossible to vote on these things perhaps he will reconsider the remark in that particular instance.
I accept that a tiny minority of disabled people who receive an extremely high level of support under the current scheme would lose substantially, except for transitional protection. We estimate that there are about 250 of those but I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, that one is enough.
My honourable friend the Minister of State in his review of what might be done for that very small group recognises that neither the brains of the department nor the wit of the organisations have yet come up with a satisfactory way of giving extra assistance to them, but we shall not stop trying and any suggestions that your Lordships may have will be gratefully received.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, before the Minister leaves the point of the disabled I wish to say that we have had many representations from their organisations claiming that it is the new applicants—that is, anyone who becomes disabled after April—who will be in a worse position than those who are presently disabled. Can the Minister explain that?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the way we normally work out these things is by taking samples from social security offices so that we can arrive at an estimated figure. I am sure that the noble Baroness is well aware of that practice. When we did that for this particular group, those who currently receive or who will receive £6·25 a week, we discovered that 250 people were likely to lose out. I am sorry. I did not mean £6·25. I meant the £24·75 that I have just referred to. There are 250 people who currently receive considerably more than that in allowances. The noble Baroness looks confused.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am confused. I was asking about people who will become disabled after April. I cannot see how the local offices can have any knowledge about how many people will become disabled.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is true but one can work on percentages. If the noble Baroness would like to work out the percentage of 250 of 270,000 people—namely, the total number of longterm sick and disabled—one can carry that forward in exemplification for the future position.
Still on the disability organisations, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked why we were unable to accept their proposals. Their original proposal would have cost an extra £300 million. Their revised proposals, dual assessment for new claimants, would have meant running two benefit sytems side by side next April. I can imagine the views of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford should that have been contemplated.
As regards the alignment of pay periods, current claimants will not lose benefit. Claimants who currently receive supplementary benefit in advance but who will be paid income support in arrears will receive a special transitional payment at the time of their transfer from supplementary benefit to income support. New claimants who are paid in arrears will accrue entitlement from the day they make their claim. Currently payment and entitlement does not normally commence until the first pay day following the claim.
When we switch to paying in arrears the claimant can make a claim against the social fund, but the majority of claimants will have received earnings from their last job to tide them over. Those earnings are disregarded in assessing income support entitlement when the claimants eventually receive it.
The noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Stallard, wanted us to restore the link of pensions with earnings. The level of basic retirement pension has to be set in the context of pensioners' incomes as a whole. On average state retirement pension and other benefits account for about 60 per cent. of pensioners' incomes. We have protected both state provision and other income by increasing pensions in line with inflation and by controlling inflation itself.
Why not index transitional protection, I was asked. The Government have provided that type of protection for very high additions in respect of domestic assistance additions—a very valuable safeguard. I cannot go further than that at present but I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that we shall be monitoring the position of all protection from next April.
As regards child benefit I wish to point out that we would need to ensure the best possible take-up of family credit whether or not child benefit was increased by 30p, which as I explained is what 4·2 per cent, would mean on this occasion. As regards those who might not claim, I must say that they stand to gain far more by claiming their family credit entitlement than they would by a mere extra 30p on child benefit. I took grateful note of what my noble friend Lord Nugent had to say in this connection.
As regards the long-term future the Government have announced no decision. However, my right honourable friend has made it abundantly clear that in view of its cost and ill-targeted nature, we are bound to keep this benefit, like others, under
62
continual review in order to assess its cost-effectiveness and relevance to the needs of today.
On the question of whether families with children lose out taking account of single payments, on the basis of the latest technical annex figures 82 per cent. of couples with children on supplementary benefit will be better off and 4 per cent. will have no change. I have to accept that 14 per cent, will be worse off. These figures compare normal weekly income under the two schemes. It is not appropriate to add single payments into that particular equation since they have quite a different purpose; in other words, one-off special needs, which, as I have explained, is part of the rationale for the social fund. The true comparison of single payments is with the social fund.
Personal allowances are not increased in line with inflation. The important point here is that personal allowances are higher in real terms than the rates we illustrate in the technical annex, the basis upon which Parliament discussed and approved the reforms.
I promised the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that I would not duck the question of emergency alarm systems. She spoke very forcefully on this subject and not surprisingly, because she has spoken very strongly indeed through the media in the last few weeks. She was backed up by my noble friend Lady Elliot.
The draft regulations simply carry forward existing policy. Housing benefit has only ever been intended to meet essential accommodation costs and not the costs of personal care. In the draft regulations before us now we have clarified our intentions to make it clear that housing benefit will be available to help with the cost of alarm systems where they are provided in the accommodation. This is particularly so when the accommodation is occupied by elderly, sick or disabled people. I am sure that this clarification will remove some of the misunderstanding about the effect of our policy and I hope that it will be widely welcomed.
I agree that the noble Baroness and the noble Lady are quite right when they say that wider community care policies are involved here. There are a number of possible sources of funding alarm systems apart from housing benefit. For example, social services authorities have separate responsibilities to provide care and personal social services from within their general budgets. This is taken into account in the annual settlement of the rate support grant.
It is clear to me from the concern which has been expressed during the debate and earlier that the question of funding for alarm systems must be considered in the context of the wider question of the funding for community care. I am therefore asking Sir Roy Griffiths to look at the issue of funding.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? For the record would he agree that it is a very real economy to keep people in their own homes? Therefore the availability of emergency alarm systems for the assistance of people who are in their own homes and not in special accommodation is not only convenient for the recipient but also a very great saving.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I certainly agree with that. What I am not prepared to agree to is that housing benefit is necessarily the right way to pay for the alarms, which is what I was endeavouring to explain to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. I am therefore asking Sir Roy Griffiths to look at the issue of funding for alarm systems and other forms of domiciliary care in his wider review of community care.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, described as a fiasco the introduction of housing benefit in 1983. He then went on to say that the purpose of the regulations now before your Lordships was simply to cut housing benefit. This could not be more wrong. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent because he explained why. I acknowledge, as I acknowledged in my opening remarks, that the current housing benefit scheme has proved difficult to administer, but these regulations tackle the fundamental structual problems in the existing scheme.
Let me give just two examples. The need for the housing benefit supplement and the high rent schemes is now removed. The new scheme, which is simpler in concept, will prove easier to administer in practice. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that as with all social security benefits we will keep this one continually under review and if it is necessary to adapt then we will adapt it.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, it will render 1 million people ineligible for housing benefit and it will save £650 million.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord was listening when I made my opening speech. I explained then, and I am prepared to stick to it, that the position now is that there will be 10 per cent. fewer losers than there were at the time when Parliament approved the social security legislation. The relative figures were given in the technical annex which was supplied to both Houses at the time.
As regards the amount of money concerned, the noble Lord is broadly correct. It would be a mistake, especially as my noble friend the Chief Whip is sitting beside me, to go into the details of tapered changes. Perhaps I may write to noble Lords who raised various particular points. I hope I have dealt with most of the issues raised. I hope that your Lordships will agree that we are producing a better system which is easier to understand and to operate.
I sometimes gain the idea from the party opposite that all change is to be condemned out of hand. I hope they will review the operation of these orders just as seriously as we in Government will. As I pointed out earlier if we need to make changes then we should not be shy about doing so.
We are bringing the main rules together in comprehensive sets of regulations. All this represents a major advance towards a more rational and coherent structure of help. It is being backed up by a complete rewriting of our leaflets, and there will be publicity to improve communications with those we
64
are seeking to help. It will be followed by a major computerisation programme to improve the operation of the system. That represents a better system, better explained and able to provide a better service to claimants.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask a question? Do I understand him to have indicated that there could be circumstances in which a person's own home was considered suitable accommodation for the elderly or disabled for the purpose of alarms under housing benefit?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I would have to study the implications of that question. I said that the regulations were amended from our original unpublished draft to make sure that any alarm system which was an integral part of the building would be covered by the housing benefit regulations. Within this any dwellings in the groups I have mentioned—namely, for the elderly and the disabled would be included. In practice the answer is yes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1987
6.38 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Family Credit (General) Regulations 1987
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987
Lord Skehnersdale: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
6.39 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a short Business Statement. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that the noble Lord, Lord Lever, will not be asking his Unstarred Question this evening, owing to illness.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
6.40 p.m.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Highland Region Harbours (Miscellaneous Powers) 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.
Lerwick Harbour 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.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 4) Order 1987
Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (England) Order 1987
Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Wales) (No. 5) Order 1987
Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 3) Order 1987
6.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I beg to move that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 3) Order 1987 (SI 1987/1837), which was laid before this House on 22nd October, be approved. With your Lordships' permission, it would be convenient to debate all four instruments together.
The orders before us are the latest in a series of instruments controlling the movement and slaughter of sheep from certain areas of Cumbria, North Wales and Scotland following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station on Saturday, 26th April 1986. So that they may be seen in context, it may be helpful if I briefly recount something of the events which led to the initial introduction of such restrictions and why some minor re-adjustments to these controls were introduced in recent months.
66
As your Lordships may recall, the Government began daily sampling of milk as soon as we received indications that a major, accidental release of radioactivity had occurred and even before the plume of radioactive material reached the United Kingdom. This sampling was rapidly extended to cover a comprehensive range of food and agricultural products throughout the country. The results showed that radioactivity levels generally were well below those at which protective action might need to be considered. The one exception was sheepmeat from certain upland areas of Cumbria, North Wales and Scotland.
The progress of the radioactive plume, rainfall patterns and the results of sampling data all pointed to the heaviest depositions of radioactive material having taken place in the North and West of the country. These areas therefore became the subject of particularly intensive monitoring. Even here the levels of radioactivity found in milk and other fresh produce were not sufficient to require protective action. However, our testing in mid-May of young lambs not yet for slaughter in certain areas of Cumbria, North Wales and Scotland showed higher levels of radiocaesium 134 and 137 than those found in the rest of country. We kept a close watch on the position and when it became apparent that levels might exceed our action level of 1,000 becquerels per kilogram before the animals went to market, agriculture Ministers took the precautionary step of using their powers under Part 1 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 to enact emergency orders controlling the movement and slaughter of sheep from the affected areas. The first such orders were enacted on 20th June 1986 in respect of England and Wales, and on 24th June in respect of Scotland, some 8,914 holdings with over 4 million sheep were originally caught by the restrictions.
It should be emphasised that 1,000 becquerels per kilogram was and remains an extremely cautious action level. When, immediately following Chernobyl, the Government had to decide what criteria to apply when determining whether or not to introduce control measures, they were faced with a range of options. The published advice of the National Radiological Protection Board was that the generalised derived limit for sheepmeat would be 10,000 becquerels per kilogram. At the same time, the group of experts set up under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty issued interim advice that, pending more detailed information on the accident, a level of 1,000 becquerels per kilogram would be safe no matter what range or combination of foodstuffs was affected.
We knew that 1,000 becquerels per kilogram was a very cautious figure since it was only 10 per cent. of that recommended by the National Radiological Protection Board. However, we were also aware that some other countries were adopting extremely low figures for trading purposes and that any levels adopted by the United Kingdom should be seen to conform with the advice given to other EC countries. A figure of 1,000 becquerels per kilogram was therefore adopted for UK sheepmeat. However, the practical implications of this figure so far as consumer safety is concerned are perhaps best

67
demonstrated by considering the fact that, if a person ate lamb for a whole year at a level of 1,000 becquerels per kilogram radiocaesium, he would receive a dose comparable to one chest X-ray; or, to put it another way, less radiation than he would receive during a return transatlantic flight on Concorde. I hesitate to say that it is cheaper to eat lamb every day than to travel on Concorde!
The initial restrictions placed a complete movement ban on sheep from the areas designated in the orders. However, such drastic measures could be only a short-term solution and, in order to minimise disruption of normal farming practices, on 18th August a modified system of control, commonly known as the "mark and release" scheme, was introduced.
The principle behind mark and release is a simple one. Sheep may only leave the designated areas with the consent of the agriculture departments. The consent is conditional upon the sheep concerned being clearly identified as ineligible for slaughter by a distinctive paint mark applied to a shorn patch on the back of the animal's head. Since September 1986 it has been possible for agriculture departments to live-monitor individual sheep moving off for radioactivity so that only those which fail need to be marked in this way.
Radioactivity levels in marked sheep tend to fall rapidly once the animals have left the restricted areas and are grazing clean pasture. Therefore, in December 1986, a futher modification to the mark and release scheme was introduced whereby the purchasers of marked animals can apply to have them re-monitored. If, on re-monitoring, their radioactivity is shown to have fallen to acceptable levels, their paint mark is cancelled by means of a distinctive ear-tag and they can then be slaughtered in the normal way. By regularly changing the colour used for marking purposes it is possible, when re-monitoring evidence warrants, to release from slaughter restrictions all sheep marked with a particular colour.
Although the mark and release arrangements may sound somewhat complex, they provide a flexible system of control which is of good assistance to farmers and others in the affected areas. The system involves a regular sequence of small adjustments to the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Orders under which the scheme operates. It is for this reason that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (England) Order 1987 consolidated the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (England) (No. 2) Order 1986 and no less than seven subsequent amendment orders. Changes to the mark and release schemes are one reason why today's debate is taking place. The second reason is recent adjustments to the boundaries of the Welsh and Scottish designated areas.
As I mentioned earlier, when restrictions were first imposed in June last year some 4 million sheep and 8,914 holdings were affected. The numbers both of animals and holdings were gradually reduced throughout the summer of 1986 and into the autumn until, by early this year, all but some 174,000 sheep from 468 holdings in Cumbria and North Wales had
68
been released from restrictions. These derestrictions took place against a background of falling radioactivity levels which took sheep in all but a few core areas below the Government's action level of 1,000 becquerels per kilogram.
However, spring brought evidence of radiocaesium being recycled in the new growth of vegetation in certain areas and government monitoring showed that this, in turn, was being taken up by sheep grazing such vegetation. In parts of North Wales and Scotland this recycling led to instances of sheep in previously derestricted areas once again exceeding 1,000 becquerels per kilogram. Therefore, movement and slaughter restrictions were imposed and even, in a few small areas of Scotland, introduced for the first time.
Some people have questioned whether those restrictions mean that the situation is deteriorating. I think the answer lies in the fact that, even after account has been taken of these recent measures, today 635 holdings and approximately 746,000 sheep are subject to control in England, Wales and Scotland as against 8,914 holdings and over 40 million sheep in June last year.
As to whether the fact that in parts of Scotland restrictions have been imposed for the first time only this year means that sheep containing in excess of 1,000 becquerels per kilogram were previously entering the food chain, we are confident that the answer is no. A comprehensive and regular policy of monitoring in slaughterhouses has been in force in Scotland since the Chernobyl accident. In only one case was a level of radioactivity above the limit detected at a slaughterhouse and that led to the prompt imposition of restrictions on the movement and slaughter of sheep from the area in question.
The Government are by no means complacent about the continuing need for restrictions. We are continuing to undertake and sponsor research aimed at increasing our understanding of how caesium behaves in upland eco-systems. We are also investigating possible remedial treatments of the land or animals affected. However, for the immediate future at least we believe that the present movement and slaughter controls provide the most practicable way of ensuring the continued safety of the food chain, the maintenance of public confidence in UK lamb and the minimum disruption to farmers' normal husbandry practices. I commend these orders to the House.
Moved, That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 4) Order 1987 laid before the House on 5th November [5th Report from the Joint Committee]; the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (England) Order 1987 laid before the House on 5th November [5th Report from the Joint Committee]; the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Wales) (No. 5) Order 1987 laid before the House on 5th November [5th Report from the Joint Committee]; and the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 3) Order 1987 laid before the House on 22nd October [4th Report from the Joint Committee] be approved—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the last time I stood up to reply to the noble Baroness, I accused her of telling us too much. Tonight I must congratulate her on telling us exactly the right amount about this important subject.
We are very glad to hear of the progress that has been made in getting over the difficulty, which was no fault of ours or of the farmers concerned. The orders are essential. They are necessary to reassure the public that they are not eating meat which is radiated, although we are now being faced with the question of irradiation, which is a different matter. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, the amount allowed—I can never pronounce the word—
Baroness Trumpington: Becquerels, my Lords.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. It is a low amount and it is very safe indeed. As the noble Baroness has said, one receives more radiation when crossing the Atlantic in Concorde. I think there was an incident when a noble Lord visited Sellafield. He had a watch which produced so much radiation that it set off an alarm. The public can therefore be assured that the Government are taking adequate action in terms of the amount allowed.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness about press reports concerning a situation in Yorkshire. The newspaper stories may be slightly exaggerated. However, the noble Baroness may feel that she can comment on that situation.
Perhaps I should mention that there is a wad of paper with each order. Those papers describe the areas in tremendous detail in terms of map references, where they are, and heaven knows what else. One such description finishes:
"the unclassified road running in a north-westerly direction until Bargrug Cottage".
I hope that someone knows where Bargrug Cottage is. Would it not be much easier simply to copy a map and issue it, rather than have pages and pages of description of the area? However, there may be some reason for that.
I gather from talking to farmers and unions that they are generally happy with the compensation. There have been some delays in Wales. However, I understand that sympathetic consideration is being given with regard to the delays. There is still the problem of what I think can be described as the third leg of the situation as regards the compensation of £1·37. There is supposed to be a five-day delay. However, it is felt that that delay is often increased and that the 1·37 does not really cover the matter. I do not think that it is a serious point but it was put to me.
This has been a difficult situation with the enormous number of farms and sheep affected. It is gratifying that the report tonight shows that the matter is being well controlled. We hope that next time the noble Baroness comes to the Dispatch Box concerning this subject she will be able to tell us that all the sheep are free of contamination, as well as the one or two shepherds and farmers who have been affected.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Baroness has been able to put this matter in perspective, which seems to me to be one of the most important things that can be done. People become terrified by radiation and obviously they are right. It is a frightening matter. However, while taking seriously the potential risk from eating animals or drinking milk which has been produced from animals grazing on contaminated grass, one cannot allow that to give sleepless nights to any consumer in the British Isles. I think that the noble Baroness has put that fairly and squarely.
It is obvious that when such matters arise there must be speedy action. There must also be continual monitoring of those areas which are likely to be contaminated. That clearly involves close liaison with the meteorological office. Is the noble Baroness quite satisfied that the liaison is as close as it should be? I am not suggesting that it is not. But I should like her reassurance on that point because it is something which must be relatively new in the activities of her ministry and of the meteorological office.
I also gather that an important factor which is emerging is the question of soil types. Certain soils appear to retain contamination for longer than others. Is that something which has come as new knowledge to the experts? Is it something which has been known for many years? In either case, has the noble Baroness or her department sufficient detailed information about soil types to be able to cope with this phenomenon?
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, raised the question of Yorkshire. I am glad that he did so. I should like to ask the noble Baroness if it is true that there is a small area of contamination in Yorkshire. Without in any way appearing to cast blame on anyone, how is it that a small area was, in the first instance, not noticed and how was it that, in the second instance, it was noticed? By what procedure has this occurred? Is the noble Baroness satisfied that there is no risk of any significant areas being overlooked in the future?
My final question is perhaps an unfair one and I shall quite understand if the noble Baroness cannot answer it. Are the experts satisfied that human beings can be contaminated only by ingesting the milk or the meat from animals that have grazed on contaminated grass, or can there be contamination by contact with the wool, for instance, or the hide? Is that a theoretical possibility? Is it a practical possibility? It is not a question to which I expect the noble Baroness to have an answer at her fingertips but it would be interesting in due course to know what the experts think about that. These orders are obviously correct and the right ones and we naturally support them.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful for the points raised by the two noble Lords. Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. It is a funny thing how fashions change. Radiation was considered the "in" thing in the 1920s. His reference to a wristwatch prompted me to say so, because when I went to one of the government laboratories in my previous incarnation I copied an advertisement which offered radiation of one's corsets. I know that that does not apply to the noble

71
Lord, Lord John-Mackie, but it might have applied to me in the 1920s, had I been alive!
Boundaries—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie—are designated by reference to hard features such as roads, walls and houses which appear on maps. Although the list of marks is long it is a simple collective system.
Both noble Lords asked me about the publicity about Yorkshire. I should like to set the record as straight as I can, because there has been much exaggeration in the press. Recent information and rainfall in Yorkshire have led us to reinvestigate the area around Skipton and Ilkley. A small number of sheep out of 600 examined proved to have elevated levels of caesium. These sheep are breeding ewes and will not be slaughtered for food. Normal farming practice in those areas is to bring sheep off the moors for finishing on lower grazing before slaughter. This makes it likely that they will lose their caesium before entering the food chain.
I am not sure whether this was queried but I shall say this to pre-empt any further queries as to why that part of Yorkshire has not been included. In Cumbria, Wales and Scotland, by contrast, sheep may be sold directly off the moorland and thus go to slaughter without the opportunity to lose their radioactivity. All lambs destined for market in Yorkshire which have been tested have been found to have low levels of radioactivity. The deposition area in Yorkshire appears to be confined to a single area of moorland on which one flock of breeding ewes has been grazing. Testing will continue to make doubly sure that there are no other pockets elsewhere. We have live-monitored 950 animals in Yorkshire. Only two were just above 1200 becquerels, confirmed by laboratory testing of meat from slaughtered animals.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, raised the point about leg 3. Leg 3 covers certain direct losses for each week the animals were held back by the restrictions. Since the introduction of restrictions we have paid out to producers over £3 million in Wales, some £1·5 million in Scotland, and in total almost £4·9 million on 9,500 claims.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, asked me about which land types held the radiocaesium. We are sponsoring a range of laboratory and field studies with the urgent aim of more closely defining the situation with regard to radiocaesium of Chernobyl origin still present in high fell areas of England and Wales and of predicting its behaviour in future years. The availability of radiocaesium for uptake by pasture plants is being studied in a range of soil types, as is the distribution of radiocaesium at different depths of soils and overlying litter layers. Comparison with measurements of pre-existing weapons-test radiocaesium will provide data as to longer-term behaviour.
I can go on and on. For instance, there is the question of worm activity. However, there are many different forms of experiment being carried out in order to ascertain the effect on soils. We know that anything with peat is a likely source, and badly drained, poor, land will also carry the radiocaesium. But we are still in a fluid process of experiment to predict the future.
72
I am glad that your Lordships have welcomed these regulations. I trust that noble Lords, like the farmers in the affected areas themselves—whose cooperation throughout this difficult period we cannot praise highly enough—will continue to bear with us as we work to maintain both the safety of, and the public confidence in, UK lamb.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes past seven o'clock.