Lords Sitting of 14 December 1989

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bradford): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Lord Parmoor Lord Parmoor—Took the Oath.

Overseas Aid: Allocation
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What changes they propose to make in the resources allocated to overseas aid over the next three years; and what percentage of the gross national product of the United Kingdom this will represent.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the resources available for aid announced in the Autumn Statement on 15th November mean that the aid programme will continue to grow in real terms over the next three years. The Government will play their full part in helping to promote sustained and sustainable development, including support for economic reform, and will be committing more resources to meet environmental concerns, especially in relation to tropical forestry.
Our concern is to ensure that a growing aid programme is used to greatest effect, not to speculate about possible percentages of GNP over the next three years.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, according to the Autumn Statement, and the analyses made of it, although the resources are planned to grow in monetary terms, they will grow at a lower rate than the present rate of inflation which means that there will be a cut? Does the Minister accept that? That is what was stated at the time. When the noble Lord refers to the percentage of GDP, is he aware that when the Government took office the proportion of GDP allocated to overseas aid by the previous government was 0·53 per cent. and that, despite a slight rise last year, it is still only 0·32 per cent.?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am aware that in 1979 the aid figure was a higher percentage of the GDP than it is now, but in 1979 we inherited a very modest GDP from the other party which was in power up to that time which, if I may say so, explains that phenomenon. I am sure that the current figures will be of more interest to the noble Lord. The aid programme is now planned at £1,587 million for 1990–91, growing to £1,680 million and £1,750 million respectively, in the next two years. Those figures represent a cumulative real-terms increase of 9·3 per cent. compared with the £1,430 million originally planned for this year.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that much of the overseas aid granted by this country in the last 40 years was intended not only to relieve poverty and to overcome drought problems, but to stimulate production in the third world countries? Therefore it is not realistic to think in terms of maintaining a particular percentage of our own GNP for overseas aid.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I could easily be persuaded to agree with my noble friend. But the fact of the matter is that we have accepted the target to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, referred, but, like our predecessors, we have been unable to say when we can achieve that. As regards the central purpose of our aid programme, I can put it in a nutshell by saying that it is to help those countries to help themselves. That is why we concentrate no less than 70 per cent. of our aid programme on the poorest 50 countries of the world.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, if the GDP which the Conservative Government inherited was as modest as the noble Lord claims it to be, can he explain how it came about that it fell in 1981?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it was because of the economic difficulties that we encountered when we came into office.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the plight of the third world countries has been highlighted this week by the launch of UNICEF's annual report into the state of the world's children? The report shows that 40,000 children die each day of preventable illnesses and malnutrition and that if this trend continues in the next 10 years 100 million children will die. Therefore, will not the Minister agree that Britain's position of being 14th out of 18 in the league of aid donors is deplorable? Will the Minister give a commitment to increase the aid from 0·32 per cent. of the GDP?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I should have thought that the real growth to which I referred just now of 9·3 per cent. is a very substantial figure indeed, leading as it will in a year or so to a figure of £1,750 million of which 70 per cent., as I said earlier, will go to the poorest 50 countries of the world. Fifty per cent. of that total goes to African countries—an area of the world where I know the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has a special interest.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to move steadily towards the OECD target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP for overseas aid?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have accepted the target in principle but, like previous administrations and many other donors, we are unable to set a date when we shall achieve it.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, as many francophone African countries are very desirous of increasing their commercial and cultural contacts with this country and do not wish to be considered a chasse

1395
gardée francais, can my noble friend say whether the aid to francophone African countries is on the increase or decrease?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not have figures for the francophone countries alone in front of me, but I shall see if I can find them and then write to my noble friend. While we cannot as yet set a date when we hope to attain the 0·7 per cent. target that has been referred to, we have already met the 1 per cent. GNP target for total flows to developing countries.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the total resources directed to the third world last year fell by 1·9 per cent. and that it is now the case that resource flows are coming from the third world to the developed world as a result of the payment of interest and debt? When the Minister speaks about the increase in real terms, what is the figure for inflation that he is taking into account when calculating those figures? According to the analysis of the Autumn Statement, if the inflation figure remains as it is the increase will be less than that 7·3 per cent. and in fact there will be a cut in the actual value of overseas aid from this country.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I really cannot accept that. The figures I gave earlier were for the real increase we expect, which of course takes into account the relevant rate of inflation. That is not a simple calculation because it depends on whether one takes into account inflation in this country, or inflation in the recipient country, or perhaps an average of the two. Different calculations have to be made in different cases. I stand by the proposition that United Kingdom aid is growing in real terms over the period that I referred to.
The noble Lord referred to the repayment of debt by recipient countries. He may wish to recall that we have written off no less than £1,000 million of old aid loans, including some £300 million for Africa.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that for the Government Front Bench to justify their present policies so often by derogatory remarks about their predecessors reveals a certain weakness?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think I am entitled to point to the shortcomings of the policy of the previous administration when they compare their performance with ours.

Passport Processing: London Office
3.11 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is now the average time taken by the London office of the Passport Office to renew a passport which requires renewal solely by reason of being 10 years old.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the London Passport Office is processing straightforward applications, including those for replacement passports, in a maximum of eight working days.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is the remarkable improvement on the past form of the passport office which that Answer indicates due to the very considerable pressure which many of us know the noble Earl himself exerted upon it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am quite certain that all improvements in performance are as a result of increased efficiency and no doubt increased pressures from different quarters. But I should not like my noble friend to take upon himself the thought that it was his pressure alone that succeeded in making the results of the passport office as good as that.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that some time ago he demonstrated the new passport and explained that it would still be possible to obtain the old British standard passport? Will it take longer to obtain one of the old-style passports than one of the new magenta ones? I ask this question out of personal interest. My own passport expires next October.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it entirely depends on which passport office issues the passport. Some passport offices are geared up to issuing the new passport, in which case, if my noble friend applies to one of those, he will receive a new passport. If he applies to one of the offices which issues the old-style passport, he will receive one of those. In either case the procedure takes the same length of time.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, when the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, tabled his Question, he did not expect the Answer which he received today? Can he confirm that it is not so much the result of pressure from on high, or from whatever level it may have come, that has produced this improvement but rather that the staffing requirements for which some of us asked have been largely fulfilled by way of an increase in staff?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for being so perceptive. I agree that I did not expect my noble friend to be quite as gratified as he was. The noble Lord is right to this extent. There have been problems over the speed of issue of passports, but we have taken a number of steps to deal with them. Much of the procedure has been computerised and an extra 220 permanent staff have been employed. A combination of all these factors has resulted in the better results so far.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend convey to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the idea that it is sometimes quite a good thing to put down a Question which genuinely asks for information? Will he suggest to the noble Lord that he might follow that example sometimes?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am bound to say that it is rare that such a modest request comes through for the Government to provide information. Very often the noble Lord asking a Question has a good idea what the Answer will be. I quite understand that on this occasion my noble friend was entirely naïve and did not know what the result would be. I am happy to pass on my noble friend's suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Perhaps in future he will be kind enough to ask only Questions to which he knows what the Answers will be.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, on a matter to which I do not know the answer, does my noble friend agree that it would be a great simplification of procedures if persons over 60 whose appearance, regrettably, is subject in photographic terms only to progressive decline could receive passports for life?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I regard the premise upon which my noble friend bases his question as totally offensive. I can assure him that even he may find that after the age of 60 his appearance is an improvement on that which went before. Whether it is or not, it is an international practice that passports should last for only 10 years. In the case of the new machine-readable common format passport, it is designed so that it has to be replaced every 10 years for security reasons.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that he is in very good form this afternoon?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am most grateful for that question. I do not know whether or not the noble Lord knows the answer.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I have a feeling that this Question is not being treated with the gravity with which it should be treated. I welcome the noble Earl's Answer and I express the hope that one day we will not need passports to move around in the European Community. If one is waiting to obtain a new passport, what can one do if one has to travel during that period?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I would not wish to have conveyed to the noble Lord that I was answering these questions in a flippant manner. I was merely trying to respond to what I thought were serious questions. The figures I have given are for the maximum time at present. Obviously, for those who need a passport in a hurry the passport office will do all that it can to accommodate them.

Iraq: Trade Relations
3.17 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they justify their action in guaranteeing new credits to Iraq of up to £250 million in view of that country's detention of British subjects without trial, refusal to release prisoners of war following the ceasefire with Iran and its internal human rights record.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, maintaining trade relations with Iraq is not incompatible with the vigorous pursuit of the issues referred to by the noble Lord. We continue to give our full support to the United Nations Secretary General in his efforts to achieve early implementation of Security Council Resolution 598 in its entirety. This expressly calls for the release of prisoners of war. The Iraqi Government are in no doubt of our concerns over the British detainee, Mrs. Parish, and over Iraq's human rights record.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. However, will the Government do their very best to achieve a concerted policy with our European Community partners and in other international groupings so that there is some consistency in diplomatic representation and in trade policy not only with Iraq but also with certain other Middle Eastern countries that have a deplorable human rights record?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the difficulty is that consistency would mean the same policy in the same circumstances. The problem is that the circumstances are never the same. It is also the case that we are a major trading nation. I am afraid that we have to do business with a number of countries with whose policies we very often disagree.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that Iraq has an appalling record on human rights and that it is responsible for killing, torturing and imprisoning thousands of Kurds and members of opposition parties? It has imprisoned two British citizens and has not responded to representations made by the Government and others. Is it not further the case that the Government sell arms to this country and give it export credit? What kind of standards are the Government adhering, to in these circumstances?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we do not sell arms to Iraq. As the noble Lord will be aware, the sale of such items to Iraq and Iran is subject to very close guidelines. Therefore, arms would most certainly not be supplied in present circumstances. There are in fact two British people in prison in Iraq one of whom is a Mrs. Parish. So far she has not been charged and, of course, we believe that she should either be charged or released. We have experienced some difficulty in gaining consular access to Mrs. Parish. However, access was granted on 4th December and we are now looking to the Iraqi authorities to grant continued access.
The other British person in prison in Iraq is Mr. Richter. He was convicted three or four years ago of an offence in that country. However, we believe that the time has come for his release on humanitarian grounds.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while I appreciate that this country is a trading nation and that trading is essential to us in so many ways, is not the price that we are paying too high? Moreover, should we not observe the principles involved?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think that closing off trading relations in these circumstances would in any way serve the objectives which the noble Lord and I share; namely, an improvement in the human rights situation in that country and a proper observance of all the legal procedures, for example, in respect of the people to whom I referred. I believe that maintaining trade relations helps in that direction. Indeed, during the recent Anglo-Iraqi Commission, which I chaired on behalf of the United Kingdom, I lost no opportunity in conveying our views on such matters to the Iraqi Minister who came to represent his government.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, are not all nations trading nations? Further, if trade is to be put above human rights or ordinary human decencies, then, presumably, we can say goodbye to any rule of law or anything like it in international society. Therefore, do not the Government realise that there is a clear contradiction between saying that we must give credits to Iraq and then saying that we totally disapprove of their internal form of government?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords; the reverse is the case. I think that if we cut off our trading relations with these countries, as with others, we would lose many opportunities to convey our views on other matters which are, I agree, of great importance.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, has my noble friend the Minister secured through his contacts with Iraq any confirmation of the view held in the United States that Iraq has recently developed a very lethal long-range missile with Chinese aid, together with aid from others, and that this now constitutes a new threat to the stability of the whole region?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have heard the rumours to which my noble friend refers, but I am afraid that I cannot confirm them.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that if the Government had made the release of these two prisoners conditional upon the issue of credits they would in all probability have been released and the issue of credits could still have gone ahead?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I may say so, that is a totally unproven assertion. The fact of the matter is that I was able to make strong representations to the Iraqi Minister about, for example, Mrs. Parish. Moreover, I am not sure that it was total coincidence that consular access was granted shortly thereafter.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the persecution of the Kurdish people, including the use of poison gas, certainly constitutes genocide as defined by the United Nations? Therefore would it not be preferable for the Government to impose trade sanctions upon Iraq, instead of extending credits to that bankrupt dictatorship?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid I must say that trade sanctions or economic sanctions, or, indeed, both of them together, have hardly ever in
1400
the whole of history generated the result which was expected by those who imposed them. I believe that the way in which to secure an improvement in human rights matters, not only in Iraq but also elsewhere, is by constant persuasion and example; and not by sanctions which, as I said, have never ever worked.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, the Question refers to "new credits" of £250 million. However, can the Minister tell the House what are the total credits?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the credits to Iraq, as to other countries which enjoy the benefit of ECGD facilities, are generally renewed on an annual basis and are subject to what is called a "market limit". However, I am afraid that the market limits are not normally published.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the policy which he has just been defending, whether right or wrong, is the policy consistently pursued by all British Governments of all parties for as long as I can remember?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend's memory goes back a little further than mine. However, this was certainly the policy of all the Administrations which I can remember.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister and his colleagues continue to press for the release, or the charging, of Mr. Bazoft who is a British protected journalist?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we shall certainly do all we can for Mr. Bazoft. As the noble Lord said, he was a journalist working, I think, for the Observer newspaper. I believe that he was arrested with Mrs. Parish. However, Mr. Bazoft does not have a British passport. As I understand it, he is travelling on a travel document issued by the United Kingdom because his own passport cannot be renewed. We shall certainly do all we can for him, but I fear that because of his slightly unusual position there will not be a great deal that we can accomplish.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that while his Government are guaranteeing these credits to Iraq, the Iraqi Administration have found the hard currency to buy into the most important British machine tool firm, through the Belgians, in order to obtain the wherewithal to supply the missiles mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff? Is he also aware that they are able to do so despite the fact that they are supposed to be bankrupt?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think that there is any suggestion that they are bankrupt. The fact of the matter is that Iraq is sitting on oil reserves second only to those in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, I think that that makes it the second largest possessor of oil reserves in the world. Regarding their intervention in United Kingdom companies, of course they are entitled to do what is within our law; but not that which is without it.

Business
3.27 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Davidson will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on Traffic in London.

Easter Recess
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I know that many noble Lords will be looking forward to next week when the Christmas Recess begins. However, I believe that some noble Lords are already trying to make plans for the Easter Recess. Therefore, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip has anything to say on the matter.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip because I really think it probably would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to comment on the matter. The thought is that the House should rise for the Easter Recess in the week ending 6th April, rather than in the following week.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. However, does that mean that the Easter Recess will take place in the week before Easter as opposed to the week after?
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords; that is correct.

British Film Institute Southbank Bill
British Railways Bill
City of London (Various Powers) Bill
Redbridge London Borough Council Bill
3.28 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, in moving the first Motion tabled in my name on the Order Paper I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to speak to all three of the Motions standing in my name.
Your Lordships will recall that early in the present Session the House agreed to a Motion in my name to allow certain Private Bills which were introduced in this Chamber during the last Session to continue in the present Session at whatever stage they had reached. I explained to the House that such a Motion, which is known as a "Reviver Motion", required the concurrence of another place and that such concurrence had not so far been forthcoming.
I am pleased to be able to inform the House that early this week those in another place concurred with your Lordships' Motion. At the same time they agreed to revive various Private Bills which were
1402
before them at the end of the last Session. However, this requires the reciprocal agreement of your Lordships and that is the purpose of the three Motions standing in my name today. If your Lordships agree to these three Motions, it will complete the necessary procedures to permit last Session's Private Bills to continue this Session. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do concur with the orders made by the Commons contained in their Message of yesterday relating to Private Bills (Procedure).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill
Hythe Marina Village (Southampton) Wavescreen Bill
Isle of Wight Bill
New Southgate Cemetery and Crematorium Limited Bill
St. George's Hill, Weybridge, Estate Bill
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bills, which were brought from the Commons in the last Session of Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent, shall notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House have leave to proceed with the Bills in the present Session, and the petitions for the Bills shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That, if the Bills are brought from the Commons in the present Session, the agent for the Bills shall deposit in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bills are the same, in every respect, as the Bills which were brought from the Commons in the last Session;
That the proceedings on such Bills shall in the present Session be pro forma only, in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the last Session and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That, if the Bills are brought from the Commons in the present Session, the Examiners shall be deemed to have reported that no Standing Order not previously inquired into was applicable thereto.—(The Chairman of Committees.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Buckingham County Council Bill [H.L.]
London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
United Medical and Dental Schools Bill [H.L.]
Nottingham Park Estate Bill [H.L.]
Medway Tunnel Bill [H.L.]
Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill [H.L.]
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bills which originated in this House in the last Session of Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent shall notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House have leave to introduce the said Bills in the present Session and the petitions for the Bills shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That every such Bill shall be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 5 o'clock on the 19th December next with a declaration annexed thereto signed by the agent concerned stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the last Session of Parliament;
That the proceedings on such Bills shall in the present Session be pro forma only, in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the last Session of Parliament, and that no new fees be charged to such stages.
—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Straw and Stubble Burning (Control) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Alport: My Lords, as the Government have shot my bolt, it would not be right for me to ask your Lordships to proceed with the further stages of the Straw and Stubble Burning (Control) Bill to which the House gave a first reading a fortnight ago. I therefore move that the Bill be now withdrawn.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

Greenwich Hospital Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Royal Hospital School at Holbrook, near Ipswich, provides a boarding secondary education for about 700 sons and grandsons of seafarers. They include both the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy. The school was set up in 1712 in accordance with the charter of 1694 given to the hospital by King William III and Queen Mary, one of the provisions of which was for the education of the children of seafarers. Greenwich Hospital pays about half the cost of running the school and for all its capital expenditure.
The Royal Hospital School has been extremely successful; but in recent years the number of applications to attend has fallen, partly because the Navy has been getting smaller and partly because of the demographic trough. It is thus necessary to take action now to ensure that the school continues to be viable.
Legislation is necessary because of the restrictive nature of the Royal Charter given in 1694, which limits the objects of financial support to purposes closely connected with naval service. That does not relate with certainty to the present proposal to admit children of no-seafarers. It is important therefore to eliminate any such uncertainty, and it is necessary to do that by Act of Parliament in accordance with previous practice under which there have been various amendments to the Greenwich Hospital Acts.
The Bill is an enabling measure to allow the governors of the school to widen the basis of entry. There is no intention to alter the school's naval ethos. The first change would be to take in daughters and granddaughters of seafarers; but a consultancy study has suggested that there might not be enough girls from that source to produce a balanced school, and that the best way ahead would be to take powers to take some children from non-seafaring families as and when the need arises.
Perhaps I may briefly explain the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1(1) widens the scope for entry to the Royal Hospital School in the way that I have just described. Within that overall framework, Clause 1(2) preserves the powers at present enjoyed by the Secretary of State for Defence to make detailed regulations covering the admission of children into the school. Clause 2 deals with the Bill's short title and citation. I commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on this side of the House appreciate the clear and lucid way in which the Minister has encapsulated the history and purpose of the school and the Bill. We give the Bill a warm welcome.

1405
The Minister from his researches will have been as aghast as I was at the amount of parliamentary heat engendered when this matter was raised on previous occasions. It is amazing that the honourable function of the House and of the Bill should have been the subject of so much carping criticism. There is no carping criticism now; but the Minister will understand that the House and those outside it will welcome a little more information.
One is always concerned about finances; indeed, the Bill is needed because the school's viability would appear to need strengthening. Will the Minister tell us a little more about the school's sources of income which enable it to continue? The finance comes substantially from the Greenwich Hospital charity and the fees. Will the Minister help the House by giving some figures about, first, the amount of money raised by the charity; and, secondly, the amount of money raised by the fees? Will the Minister tell the House what the fees are? I understand and appreciate the need to widen the intake from sons and grandsons to daughters and granddaughters, and even beyond that. The Minister and his advisers have been well advised to take two bites at the cherry and not merely to widen the intake on a family basis, but to take powers to allow those unable to claim a previous seafaring link to attend what is, from all that I have seen and read, a fine school.
I have a note which says that for a pupil of a naval family the fees paid are 10 per cent. above BSI. Will the Minister help decipher those initials? I have no information—the Minister must have it—of precise figures. Will the Minister also tell us whether the powers-that-be have it in mind to differentiate in fees between those who can claim a seafaring link and those who cannot? This side of the House believes that it is eminently sensible.
The Minister told us that at the moment there are 700 sons and grandsons in the school. Can we be told the figure that he has been advised will make the school viable? Are we talking about increasing the roll from 700 to 800 or to 1,000? I can assure the Minister there is no malice in these questions. It is an interest that I have found when looking at the matter.
Will the Minister also tell us—particularly when charitable money is being used—what inquiries are made in respect of entitlement to attend the school? We know, as does the Minister, that the House is currently in the middle of a matter in respect of war widows that I believe will be resolved satisfactorily. Many of the children with whom we are dealing here will be sons and daughters of men who have given their lives. The House will be interested to hear from the Minister something about the finances that will be involved when the Bill becomes an Act.
The Minister can be assured that we believe the Bill is timely and sensible. From the thrust of what the Minister said and bearing in mind what those outside the House believe is necessary, we on this side of the House give the Bill a warm welcome.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships, but I heard my noble friend
1406
correctly say that he had read what a splendid school this was. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that two years ago I was invited to the school. I spent some time there, and stayed overnight. I confirm what has been said by the Minister and by my noble friend: it is indeed a school of which the House can be proud.
I enjoyed the companionship and the mental agility of the sixth form boys and the hospitality of the headmaster. There is one former First Lord here this afternoon, in the person of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham; I do not know whether he shared with me the privilege of having been chairman of the Greenwich Hospital Committee, but at least I have left my mark on it because there is a Callaghan copse there from 30 years ago. I hate to say that it was partly destroyed by the great storm, but I understand that the committee is replanting it.
I have a feeling of slight nostalgia and regret that the step we are discussing is necessary. However, it is a great school. I attended the school ceremonies in the morning and was impressed by all that I saw. I am happy to see that steps are being taken to maintain and, I hope, to expand the school so that it will continue its great traditions.
I urge, although I am sure that it is unnecessary to do so, the Minister to think about the Navy's recruits who were drawn from this school. A former scholar of the school, Commander Pursey, who used to make so much trouble there, rose to be a commander and then entered the other place as the Labour Member for Hull. It was he who used every year to make the lives of Parliamentary Secretaries to the Admiralty a misery. The school has been under the notice of the House for many years. I commend the Bill to the House and am very glad indeed to see that these active provisions are being made.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say initially that I welcome the kindly comments of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, on the warm experiences he has had at the school in the past.
In his usual perceptive manner, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked many questions about certain aspects of the school and I hope to deal with all of them. If there are some which I cannot answer I shall write to the noble Lord or they may come up at the Committee stage in your Lordships' House.
First, perhaps I may take the fees that parents pay. I can tell the noble Lord that fees for the sons of a seafarer, a serving officer or rating on BSA—which by the way stands for boarding school allowance whereby the parents make a 10 per cent. contribution—are currently £1,628 per term. The average fee for assisted seafaring families is £428 per term. Non-seafarers would pay more than seafarers and the current fees at the moment are approximately £5,000 per annum.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also asked about the current income. For the year ended March 1988 the total income was just over £3 million. The total expenditure was just under £250,000. That does not take into account the capital assets that have to

1407
be spent on refurbishing and other such capital requirements.
The assets of the hospital amount to some £88 million, in which I understand that no public money is involved. Furthermore, regarding what the money is spent on, there are a number of items. For example, there are special pensions for seamen and their widows and other projects such as sheltered housing for naval pensioners, which is under consideration at present.
Another question which the noble Lord asked us, is if the Bill is successful and passes through Parliament, what number of pupils will be envisaged. We hope and intend that the number of pupils will be in the region of 700. I hope and trust that I have been able to answer the majority of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I believe that the Bill is necessary for the future of the Royal Hospital School. I commend it to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1989
3.44 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead)The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships may know, under the terms of the resolution of another place of 21st July 1987, parliamentary salaries will increase on 1st January 1990 in line with Civil Service rates for grade 6s—that is, formerly senior principals in the Civil Service. The draft order which I laid before your Lordships' House on 1st December determines the revised salaries proposed for Ministers and paid office holders from the same date.
In a Written Answer I gave to the House on Monday 4th December, I set out in detail all the changes which we envisage. The average increase in salaries in this House will be a little over 7.5 per cent. and 6 per cent. in another place. The average for the proposed package as a whole is just under 6.5 per cent.
In your Lordships' House we propose that Ministers and paid office holders should receive a cash increase of £2,594 in their official salary. This is the same cash increase as Members of Parliament will receive in their salaries.
In the Commons all Ministers and paid office holders will receive an increase of £641 which, with the increase of £ 1,953 in their reduced parliamentary salary, gives them a total increase of £2,594—also the same as Members of another place. As I have said, these increases represent an average increase for Ministers and paid office holders in both Houses of just under 6·5 per cent. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for explaining this order to us. The Government have again adopted the ingenious solution first used last year of applying as a flat rate increase the increase given to Members of Parliament and the increase in ministerial and other salaries. That has a lot to commend it but it produces the quirky result that the highest paid Minister receives the lowest percentage increase; so the Prime Minister herself receives the lowest percentage increase of all.
In other circumstances one might have some reservations about flat rate increases. I heard noble Lords yesterday afternoon talking loudly and strongly about the difficulties of flat rate increases in the refreshment department. However, these are other circumstances this afternoon and I think that the Government's decision to apply a flat rate increase to these salaries is probably right.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend has explained the proposals to your Lordships. On the face of it they seem reasonable and modest, setting a good example to the rest of the public sector. However, I must express a note of regret that the opportunity has not been taken to remedy a matter which I think is of significance and importance in this House; that is, the very poor level of remuneration of junior or middle grade Ministers in the House. In another place, after all, Members receive a substantial part of a parliamentary salary and allowances added to their ministerial salary, which produces a not unreasonable figure. However, in your Lordships' House these junior Ministers have no parliamentary salary with which to augment their ministerial salary, which looks a little bare.
Moreover, there is an important point which I think most of your Lordships understand. Those who take on duties as junior Ministers in the House are almost always of the younger political generation, often with families and children to educate. I do not wish to quote examples—that would be embarrassing—but there is no doubt at all that some of those who have taken on junior ministerial office in this House have done so at considerable financial sacrifice. It is also reasonably well known that some former junior Ministers have felt it impossible to continue on the present basis and have returned to more remunerative occupations. I believe that others have felt it impossible to join the administration for these reasons.
I had hoped therefore that when this review took place an effort would be made substantially to increase both in absolute and in relative terms the remuneration of middle and junior Ministers in the House. I did so for two reasons: first, the fairness to the individuals concerned and, secondly, from the practical point of view of securing for the House the service of the best possible Ministers.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend proceeds, will he clarify one point? When he uses the expression "junior Ministers", can he assure us that he has particularly in mind Lords in Waiting?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I did not have Lords in Waiting particularly in mind as they are specifically provided for here. To be frank I had more the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in mind. However, what I have to say obviously has its applicability to Lords in Waiting. I prefer to refer to the category of junior Ministers as embracing Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries and Lords in Waiting, in fact the whole of the Ministerial team below the Cabinet level.
Although nothing has been done on this occasion, I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be able to give some encouragement to those of us who, as he knows, have for some time been urging upon Her Majesty's Government the desirability, and indeed the necessity, of making some quite substantial improvements in this direction if fairness is to be shown to individuals and if this House is to be properly served.
That is the main point I rise to speak to, but I should be grateful if in replying my noble friend the Leader of the House will explain one provision of the order, and that is the apparent disparity among Law Officers in favour of the Scottish Law Officers. It is not on the face of it obvious why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate should be paid £7,000 a year more than the Attorney-General. It is still less obvious why the Solicitor General for Scotland should be paid £9,000 a year more than the Solicitor General in England. This may of course reflect the presence on the Woolsack of a Scottish Lord Chancellor, thereby ensuring that the merits and appeal of Scottish Law Officers are fully recognised. However, on the face of it, it is a little surprising because, important though the role of the Scottish Law Officers is—I am the last person to underrate that role—those of us who have seen the Attorney-General and the Solicitor General at work in another place on the immense volume of business they handle wonder why they are not treated at least on a similar basis. No doubt there is an explanation for that as there generally is for these things, but I should be very interested to hear it.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his submission that junior officers, particularly those in this House, need some increased remuneration. I believe that that probably goes for junior and middle Ministers generally. However, I should not like it to be thought that Members in another place who hold ministerial office receive an extra salary and allowances by virtue of their parliamentary seats simply as a way of augmenting their ministerial income. That is not the case because they do not even receive the full parliamentary salary. The recollection of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, may be a little dim as it is some time since he held the dual function of a Member of the House and a Minister, but I know that Ministers carry the additional burden of constituency duties which incur expenses that could not reasonably be met out of their ministerial salaries. They may have the additional burden, as I had whenever I was a Minister, of having a small majority.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, during my period as a Cabinet Minister I had a number of distinguished junior Ministers who were Ministers in this House. I became seized of the importance of the point that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has made. I would not dream of mentioning names, but one particular Minister who served with great distinction and fortitude terminated his position as he felt he could no longer continue. He confessed to me that his period as a Minister in this House had cost him something in the order of £5,000; that is to say, he was that much out of pocket at the end of his period of office as compared with the beginning. He was putting his hand in his pocket in order to serve this House and the Government.
It is no secret that former Leaders of this House—I do not expect my noble friend on the Front Bench to disclose what representations he may have made—have made representations again and again that this anomaly should be dealt with. It is simply not fair to the individuals concerned. It does not serve the Government well and it certainly does not serve this House well. It really is time that this unfair anomaly should be dealt with. I hope that the word may go out from this House, and from such distinguished Members as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, that those with some experience of these matters feel that the situation cannot go on like this. This matter must be dealt with next time round.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I had intended to speak quite briefly, but certainly I wish to endorse what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has said. I do not wish to play with words, but it always seemed to me, and still does, that the anomaly rests not necessarily with the salary but more with the expenses that junior Ministers have to cope with. I am talking of course about the London allowance. It is monstrous that junior Ministers in your Lordships' House are deemed to live in London. If one looks at the list over the past 10 years or so, one finds that they do not live in London. They have to take up a residence or an establishment of some kind and incur an expense which has to come out of taxed income. The taxed income in terms of the remuneration is not all that generous, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said.
When we look at the package that Ministers in the House of Lords receive, it should be borne in mind that acceptance of a position of some responsibility which is discharged honourably and properly should not mean that Ministers are so disadvantaged in terms of that particular cost. Will my noble friend the Leader of the House give more importance to that point than the salary iself?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am a former member of the Top Salaries Review Body although I served on it some years ago now. The members of that body discussed these matters. The decision was made, rightly or wrongly, to link these salaries to a Civil Service grade. Following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I should like to know whether these other matters such as the London allowance and other payments are being sufficiently considered.

1411
I well recall that we gave great attention to such matters. We found that at that time there was a great number of these relatively small expenses which in aggregate make a lot of difference to the position of junior Ministers. Perhaps linking those salaries to a Civil Service grade has led to a position where those other items do not receive sufficient consideration. Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House look into that?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for his support for the order I have moved. I am also grateful to all the other noble Lords who have spoken briefly but succinctly on that order. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter regretted that the remuneration for junior and middle rank Ministers—I shall call them junior and middle rank Members of the Government, as I certainly include Lords in Waiting in this matter—had not been, as he put it, remedied. All the remarks which my noble friend made about the duties of junior and middle Members of the Government in your Lordships' House were absolutely true. I also thought the remarks of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth were important and I shall draw them to the attention of those of my right honourable friends who are concerned with this matter. I can assure the noble Baroness that all those matters are always considered at the time of a pay round.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was good enough to say at the beginning of his remarks that he felt that a total increase for members of the Government and paid office holders of just under 6·5 per cent. set a good example. I believe that it is important at a time of inflation that the pay increase should be of that kind of percentage.
I was asked one direct question which also had a bearing on the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mulley. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked why, looking at the list of increases, the Scottish Law Officers seem to receive a great deal more in total pay than my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General and my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General. My noble friend is quite right, as usual, in the sense that the official salaries of the Scottish Law Officers are higher than those of the English Law Officers. However, when one looks at the total, taking into account the parliamentary salary, it can be seen that my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General and my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General receive a good deal more in cash than the Scottish Law Officers.
However, one has to bear in mind, as the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, said, that the parliamentary salary is only a proportion of the parliamentary salary paid to Members in another place. Nonetheless, the answer to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is that when one looks at the total cash which goes to those particular members of the Government one sees that the amount which goes to the English Law Officers is a good deal more than the amount which goes to their Scottish counterparts.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down—
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I want to make it clear, as I failed to do earlier, that although Ministers in another place receive only part of their parliamentary allowance their constituents expect them to discharge their parliamentary responsibilities as well as, if not better than, those Members who are not Ministers. In order to avoid misunderstanding it should not be thought that Ministers in another place do not also have to be treated as living in London. I do not know whether the position has changed, but in my experience that was certainly the case. One received no allowance for that in another place as I understand no allowance is made in this House.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend finally sits down, does he appreciate that the argument that he has just used concerning the higher payment to the Scottish Law Officers—that unlike their English counterparts they do not receive a parliamentary salary—undermines his whole argument in respect of other Ministers who are not given the same treatment? If that is right for Law Officers—and it is a fact that lawyers are sometimes quite good at looking after themselves—why is it not right for all the other Ministers in this House?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I gave anything away it was entirely inadvertent. I am unable to answer the last question of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. However, as I promised, I shall draw the remarks of my noble friend as well as the remarks of all other noble Lords to the attention of those of my right honourable friends who are concerned in these matters.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (No. 4) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
4.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Appropriation (No. 4) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 laid before this House on 14th November be approved. The order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. This is one of a series of routine financial orders for Northern Ireland which come before the House each year. They are unique to the proceedings of this House. As we all know, under the Parliament Acts we are debarred from discussing the direct finances of the country except in very general terms.
On this occasion I am asking the House to approve extra funds for only two Votes; namely, the Department of Economic Development Vote 2 and the Department of Health and Social Services Vote 4. The Department of Economic Development

1413
Vote 2 includes expenditure on local enterprise and assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, while the Department of Health and Social Services Vote covers expenditure on those social security benefits which are not dependent on national insurance contributions. Contributory benefits such as unemployment benefits are not covered by this order.
The draft order authorises an additional £95.7 million over these two Votes. Your Lordships may wish to refer to the Northern Ireland Autumn Supplementary Estimates 1989–90 booklet, which is available from the Printed Paper Office. That gives full details of the additional expenditure sought.
I shall start with the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Economic Development. It refers to only two areas; namely, local enterprise and assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industry. Fifty-eight million pounds is required to meet further costs associated with the privatisation of Short Brothers plc on 3rd October 1989. The Government agreed in the heads of agreement in June to fund the losses incurred by Shorts from 1st April 1989 until the completion of the sale at a date to be agreed. In other words we did not know how much money would be needed or when. That is why appropriation was not made earlier in the year. We now have a good idea but audited figures have still to be agreed. The Department of Economic Development has also retained the financial liabilities and obligations associated with aircraft sold in the past by Shorts, and funding is also required to cover certain of those costs within this financial year.
Your Lordships will also be aware that the privatisation of the shipbuilding business of Harland and Wolff was completed in September. Under the arrangements for the sale, the new company—Harland and Wolff Holdings plc—will receive from the Government repayable loan stock, rationalisation grants and intervention aid on new merchant orders. The old company—Harland and Wolff plc—will no longer trade but will continue to be responsible for certain pre-sale commitments, including redundancies and ship financing arrangements. Therein lies part of the reason for the appropriation of this money.
There is, in consequence, a reduction of £45·9 million in the amount of funding required for Harland and Wolff plc, the old company. Additional funding of £79·9 million is, however, needed for the new company, Harland and Wolff Holdings plc. In addition, an increase of £741,000 is needed to cover the fees of consultants appointed by the Department of Economic Development to provide specialist advice on aspects of the privatisation. The Estimate which is now before the House accordingly provides for an increase of £34 million, to just under £94 million, for assistance to shipbuilding during 1989–90. That will be offset by appropriations-in-aid of £28·5 million, representing the payment for the assets and business by Harland and Wolff Holdings and the repayment of grants to the department by the old company.
The other area of the Department of Economic Development's Vote 2 for which extra provision is
1414
required is the Local Enterprise Development Unit, Northern Ireland's small business agency. As many of your Lordships are no doubt aware, LEDU, as it is called, together with the Industrial Development Board has had considerable success in promoting new jobs in the Province. In the financial year 1988–89 LEDU promoted some 4,580 new jobs and renewed some 420 jobs. Over the same period, the IDB promoted some 5,650 new jobs, renewed 1,680 jobs and maintained 745 jobs. I am sure the House will agree that that is not a bad record. The number of new jobs promoted by the two organisations in 1988–89 represented increases of 13 per cent. and 7 per cent. respectively over the previous year. The draft order seeks an additional £365,000 partly offset by savings of £265,000 from economies elsewhere within LEDU's budget, to enable LEDU to continue its work of encouraging the development of small businesses in Northern Ireland.
Finally, the additional requirements in that Vote are further offset by a reduced requirement of £3 million on capital grants. That results from a continuing decline in the number of firms seeking assistance under the capital investment grants for industrial development scheme. That scheme has been abolished, but applications for grants for expenditure up to 3rd March 1988, when it stopped, can continue to be made up to 31st March 1990.
I now turn to the other Vote requiring extra funds in the Supplementary Estimate—the Department of Health and Social Services Vote 4. An increase of £34·4 million is sought for the social security programme. Your Lordships will appreciate that expenditure under that Vote is very largely demand-led and that it is not unusual for the estimates to be adjusted during the year.
The most significant increase sought—£33·1 million—is for income support due mainly to average payments to claimants being higher than originally provided for. Also higher average payments, partly due to increases in Northern Ireland Housing Executive rents and higher payments to certain pensioners, account for an increase of £1·4 million for housing benefit. Additional provision of £3·6 million for attendance allowances and £1·7 million for child benefit is sought because of increases in the numbers of claimants.
The extra requirements that I have outlined on that Vote are partly offset by estimating adjustments of £5·9 million elsewhere in the Vote. Of that £5·6 million relates to family credit, where the uptake is lower than originally anticipated despite an on-going publicity campaign to encourage applications. The remaining £300,000 is due to a revised estimate of requirements for rates rebates, reflecting lower than anticipated take-up.
I hope that the House has found this summary of the main components of the Autumn Supplementary Estimate helpful. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)

London Traffic Flow
4.12 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport about new initiatives to relieve traffic congestion in London. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about new initiatives to relieve traffic congestion in London. My proposals are being published today, together with separate consultation papers setting out my provisional conclusions on the four London assessment studies. I am placing copies in the Library.
"The economic boom of the 1980s has had a dramatic impact on London. Population, employment and incomes have all grown and demand for transport has exploded. There is every indication that this trend will continue. We have to provide for planned commercial and residential development; and proposals for the transport systems will in turn be an essential element in the development plans which the London boroughs are preparing.
"Last month I announced our plans to transform London's public transport systems. Over the next three years London Regional Transport plans to invest a further £2·2 billion on modernising and upgrading its systems. This includes work on the extension of the Jubilee Line to Docklands. Subject to further work, I expect that a Bill for a new line to relieve congestion in central London will be deposited next year. Network SouthEast plans to spend a further £1·2 billion over the same period to improve its services for London's commuters.
"It is clear that public transport will always play the key role in moving people in and out of central London. But congestion on the roads must be tackled too. We are improving the quality and capacity of the trunk roads wherever possible. But we must make the best use of existing roads. Our aim is to keep traffic flowing as freely as possible. The discussion document I am publishing today brings forward new proposals for traffic management and parking control.
"First, I propose a 300-mile priority route system—red routes. Stopping, loading/unloading and parking will be severely restricted. A pilot scheme will start next summer to establish the best way of implementing the proposal. I shall begin the necessary discussions with local authorities and the police immediately.
"Secondly, a consistent and businesslike approach to the management of these major routes is essential. I propose legislation to establish a Traffic Director to ensure the coherent development and operation of the red routes. The Traffic Director would not replace the existing highway authorities but would have a co-ordinating role on these routes, with appropriate reserve powers.
1416
"Thirdly, I strongly believe that the fixed penalty level for illegal parking on the red routes and possibly elsewhere in London should be increased. The Government will consult representative organisations on possible legislation and the appropriate level of fine.
"Fourthly, new traffic management guidance will aim to ensure that yellow lines are strictly confined to places where they are needed. Drivers must be convinced that where there are such restrictions they are needed and will be rigorously enforced.
"Fifthly, effective enforcement of traffic and parking regulations will be a key element. The police and traffic wardens will remain responsible for enforcing parking bans. The role of the traffic wardens will be enhanced. They will be given powers to authorise removals and wheel-clamping. Local authorities would take on the control of parking at meters and residents' bays, allowing traffic wardens to concentrate their efforts on the red routes and the more serious offences.
"We also need to go on improving the road system. We already have a substantial programme in London. This is geared mainly to upgrading the North Circular and improving access to Docklands and East London. One of the most notorious bottlenecks is the Blackwall Tunnel, and so I am announcing today my decision to add to the programme a scheme for a third tunnel. There will also be a review to see whether another crossing is needed between the Blackwall Tunnel and Tower Bridge.
"Turning then to the four assessment studies, these have been detailed and intensive studies. They have looked at a range of public transport, traffic management and road improvement measures on a comparable basis. They show that public transport improvements are needed but cannot by themselves solve the traffic and environmental problems however much we invest in the rail systems. Road improvements are necessary to increase the efficiency of the system, to reduce accidents and to take traffic out of residential areas.
"The consultants looked at a large number of options. They have narrowed these down to two or three recommended options in each area. Most of the major new roads they considered have been eliminated. Even so, they have recommended some schemes which I do not consider should be pursued further. These have been ruled out. I am only prepared to go forward with new road schemes which will bring significant overall benefits, taking full account of the environmental effects. I have selected for consultation a number of ideas for new public transport projects and a limited number of new road schemes, mostly to improve existing roads.
"New proposals for the transport systems in London will be vital to securing environmental improvements and creating opportunities for new development. In preparing proposals my department will therefore work closely with the

1417
Department of the Environment, local authorities, transport operators and the police.
"Copies of the consultants' reports will be available at public libraries and town halls in the study areas and will be sent to representative local organisations. Free leaflets setting out the consultants' main findings and recommendations will be circulated widely, together with a statement of the department's initial views. This will set out clearly the options that have been rejected and those on which comments are invited.
"It is now nearly 18 months since the consultants first published their options. There has never before been such wide and open consultation on transport studies. But I am very conscious that it has caused great uncertainty. I am now determined to end the uncertainty, to reach early decisions and to remove the threat of blight as quickly as possible, I am therefore asking for comments by 28th February.
"Any schemes entered into the national road programme will have to go through the full statutory procedures, which provide for public inquiry. The amount and timing of any additional expenditure would be for decision in the Public Expenditure Survey in the usual way.
"Mr. Speaker, these proposals, with those for the Jubilee Line and the Central London Rail Study and the massive investment in Network SouthEast, show that this Government have a balanced approach to London's transport problems. The measures I am announcing today, together with those I have brought forward in recent weeks, will give our capital city the improved transport system it deserves, and I commend them to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. Frankly, it is almost a non-Statement. It contains many words but few positive proposals which we can grasp. Reference is made to the consultation papers and the four assessment studies. An envelope was placed in my hand about 20 minutes ago, the contents of which, frankly, I have not read. I do not therefore know what is in the consultation papers or in the assessment studies. I do not blame the noble Viscount for that, but this is the kind of procedure that we have raised on numerous occasions. By itself the Statement does not convey the full impression of what is being done. We need to read the other documents as well and to have them in good time.
On the first page of the Statement—I am sorry that I cannot refer to paragraph numbers because we do not have them—the Secretary of State says:
"Subject to further work, I expect that a Bill for a new line to relieve congestion in central London will be deposited next year".
Does that refer to the reference to the Jubilee Line in the previous sentence or is a new line being proposed in addition to the Jubilee Line extension? Exactly what proposals from the Central London Rail Study are being adopted?
1418
The next sentence refers to Network SouthEast planning to spend an additional 1·2 billion. Can the noble Viscount say whether there is any truth in the report in the press recently that the Government will reduce the public service obligation grant to Network SouthEast? If so, what will happen to fares and what effect will it have on commuters travelling into London?
It is stated that:
"Public transport will always play the key role in moving people in and out of central London".
On page 3 it is stated that public transport improvements are needed. The Statement does not indicate what improvements in public transport are proposed. All noble Lords will agree that until there is clean and efficient transport that arrives on time we shall not see much additional use.
Baroness Phillips: And comfortable transport.
Lord Underhill: And comfortable transport, as my noble friend says. I do not wish to begin a discussion on congestion in London because we have had a debate on that, but I must make those points.
There are proposals for a 300-mile red route system, which may be satisfactory when we know exactly what they will be. There is no reference to that. Presumably one has to read the various documents. We have been assured that three-quarters of the traffic in London is on local roads. That also applies to other parts of the country. Therefore the problem of local road congestion is equally as important as the red routes. I note that discussions will take place, but until we know the exact form of the red routes it is difficult to comment on them.
Legislation is proposed to establish a Traffic Director. What relationship will the Traffic Director have to the highway authorities? That proposal does not relate to a London-based strategy. We do not have such a London-based strategy organisation. Does it mean that the Department of Transport will take over as the strategic body of London Transport, appointing a director and deciding exactly what will happen? There is no positive statement on that.
The new traffic management guidance may be satisfactory if we knew exactly what was proposed. We are told that the aim will be to ensure that yellow lines are strictly confined to places where they are needed. Who will determine such places? I can speak of many places where yellow lines are not enforced because of the inadequate number of traffic wardens. If people ask for an example they can come to the area of the Epping Forest District Council where I live and see the situation. I completely agree that:
"drivers must be convinced that where there are such restrictions they are needed and will be vigorously enforced".
I believe that the reference to enforcement is possibly the most important factor.
There is no reference to buses operated by one person, and whether that system will be extended or stopped. Most people believe that we ought to cease the operation of such buses in central areas. There is no reference to bus lanes, traffic restraint, street works or the possibility of the introduction of

1419
legislation on the Horne Report—a matter about which we have been talking almost for years and which we raised recently with regard to another matter. Is it not important to deal with those issues in connection with London Transport?
I do not know what timing is proposed with regard to the additional crossing and the additional third tunnel. We were told earlier that expenditure and timing would depend on the expenditure review. Shall we have to wait for many years? What will be the cost basis? I believe that many noble Lords will be concerned as we were told on a previous occasion that the cost of these improvements will be passed on to the passengers. Once one starts to pass costs running into billions on to passengers, instead of taking cars off the road we will add more cars.
We then come to the four assessment studies. I have not been able to read them; I do not know whether they are good or bad.
I thought that the noble Lord the Chief Whip was saying that I was taking too long.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I would not have said so even if I had thought it, which I did not.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am very pleased about that because this is a quite lengthy Statement, of five pages.
The cost of the assessment studies was £10 million. We are told that many of the proposals are being disregarded. That may be right because the consultants were considering far too many options. That aroused considerable public concern. In the Statement the Secretary of State says:
"I have selected for consultation a number of ideas for new public transport projects"—
it would be interesting to know exactly what those are; they are not mentioned in the Statement—
"and a limited number of new road schemes".
Again except for reference to the North Circular road scheme and one other there is no reference to what the new road schemes will be.
Will copies of the consultation papers and the consultants' reports be available for noble Lords in the Printed Paper Office? The Statement refers to them being available in the Library, but that refers to the House of Commons.
The Statement says that,
"It is now nearly 18 months since the consultants first published their options".
Since then about 180 local groups in London have become extremely worried about the various proposals. Until we read the consultant's final reports and the parts which the Secretary of State has adopted, we will have no idea whether he has adopted the good parts or those about which there is considerable concern. Both the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities were extremely concerned about the general tenor of the first report of the consultants which laid down their possible options. In the penultimate paragraph it states:
"The amount and timing of any additional expenditure would be for decision in the public expenditure survey in the usual way".
1420
I have referred to that issue already. We should like to know exactly what the time factor may be. We are also told that the consultation documents are being circulated for replies by 28th February. Knowing the concerns of the London boroughs, and in view of the Christmas break for local authorities, is that not asking too much of local authorities? While we want speedy action, I am certain that the local authorities require time for proper consultation. If we are to consider red routes and various ideas for traffic management, there must be opportunity for detailed consideration. I recognise that the final decision should be taken in time for the local government elections.
Although there may be some encouraging words in the document, it looks as though each area has studied the position in isolation. There is no general base for a strategy for London because there is no strategic traffic authority in London. That is obviously a considerable liability. What consideration is being given in these proposals to combining traffic management, traffic development and road development with land use? It seems that such issues are excluded from the document. While the Statement may contain useful, encouraging words, until we have had consultation on the details and until we are able to consult on the proposals, we remain very concerned.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I also thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement in this House. I find it a somewhat mind-boggling task to address myself to a complex Statement at such short notice. I shall not repeat the points that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has made. However, I am a little worried about some of the language in the Statement, which appears to suggest that there are plans to transform public transport in London.
Admittedly a fair amount of money is being spent on modernising and upgrading. However, that includes extensions to the Jubilee Line which will mop up a large amount. That line is the least cost-effective that could have been chosen. So far as we know, it has been chosen because it goes to Canary Wharf and will receive private funding and not because it is the most useful line to relieve congestion in inner London.
Reference is made to public transport playing a key role in moving people in and out of London. Again, one asks the question: if good public transport is necessary to solve the problem where is the money which will pay for that and will people be able to get away from the squalor which now exists on the Underground and the buses?
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the passage in the Statement about a new Bill providing for a new line to relieve congestion in central London being deposited next year. I wondered whether that referred to the crosslink line, which I understood had been put on the back burner. If this is an indication that the line is to be brought forward that is greatly to be welcomed. The east-west and north-south lines would make a great contribution towards relieving congestion and getting people out of their cars and on to public transport.

1421
One gives a qualified nod of approval to the suggested red route on a short-term basis while public transport is improved. To what extent will the disabled be exempt from the provisions of the red route if the penalties and controls are to be stricter on double yellow lines? Will disabled people be able to park in the red route areas, and if not what will happen to them? Although not a large number of disabled people will be in difficulty as a result, it is important on an individual basis if they are being forced away from places in which they need to park.
I noticed that there will be a significant change in the role of traffic wardens. They will be given powers to authorise removals and wheel clamping. I do not object to that, provided that they are properly trained to do so and that their standards are brought into line with those of the Metorpolitan Police. In those circumstances I believe that no one will complain. However, I then see that local authorities will take over the control of parking at meters and residents' bays. What provision is being made for local authorities to obtain the necessary finance in order to take on that onerous task while the traffic wardens concentrate their efforts on the red routes?
As regards the third Blackwall Tunnel, I should like to know whether it is to be publicly or privately funded. Obviously, it is too soon to comment on the assessment studies, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I am sure that 28th February is too early a date on which to expect serious comments to be placed in the hands of the Department of Transport. Friends of the Earth has said that people will need five months to consider the studies, but that may be at the other extreme.
We all recognise the dangers of planning blight in this situation. But, on the other hand, people who are likely to have their homes removed because of the contents of the assessment studies which we have not yet seen are likely to want a period of time beyond 28th February in order to make proper representations. I also understand that the studies cost £40 each. Therefore, individuals who may feel that their homes are in danger may be reluctant to spend that amount of money but may be forced to do so.
I understand that the Traffic Director will be confined to the red route. That appears to me to be a curious appointment. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, it is, important that we have overall traffic direction in London and overall traffic management. It is time that the Government reconsidered the setting up of an overall highway authority for the London area so that these extremely complicated matters can be co-ordinated on a sensible basis.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, for their qualified reception of what I consider to be a first-class Statement. Documents referred to in a Statement are not always available at the same time as the Statement. I apologise for the fact that they may be a little later than normal, but perhaps it was not fully understood that the Statement would be repeated in this House.
1422
The discussion document on initiatives to tackle the problems, together with the consultants' reports and the Department of Transport's initial views and requests for comments on the four assessment studies, are now available in the Library and will be in the Printed Paper Office. Most of the answers to the questions which have been asked are to be found in those documents. I do not propose to comment on questions about matters which were not contained in the Statement.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, raised the question of the cost of the reports. In the Statement my right honourable friend said that copies of the consultants' reports will be available at public libraries and town halls in the study areas and will be sent to representative local organisations. Free leaflets setting out the consultants' main findings and recemmendations will be circulated widely, together with a statement about the department's initial views.
The assessment studies involved a very high cost. They were extremely detailed and looked at a wide range of options. Some were rejected for further consideration and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has rejected a few more. However, the department's view of the assessment studies is that the documents now contain only half the original number of proposals for further consideration. Therefore, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State considers that the two months until 28th February will be a sufficient period of time for these matters to be considered. Schemes for consultation are identified in freely available leaflets.
As regards the red routes, my right honourable friend sees the need for a coherent set of controls over the main routes. Controls need a unique identification in order to make drivers aware that special conditions apply. We wish to see traffic on those routes flowing more easily. That will improve safety, efficiency and the environment. Again, that is a matter for further consultation with local authorities and the police. The Government's strategic approach to transport in London is as set out in the Secretary of State's Statement about transport in London made in January 1989.
The new line referred to in the Statement is in addition to the Jubilee Line. It arises from the central London rail study. Further work will show which line, in addition to the Jubilee Line, should be pursued.
As regards the Traffic Director, we do not see the need to create a strategic transport authority. Therefore, the responsibilities of local authorities, transport operators and others are clearly understood. The Traffic Director will be appointed by the Secretary of State, working to his objectives. It is proposed that his main function will be to ensure that local authorities introduce priority routes on their roads in a timely and orderly way. Once the network is established it is proposed that he will ensure that it is managed in accordance with my right honourable friend's objectives and maintained to an appropriate standard. It is also proposed that he should encourage better co-ordination of parking controls off the main routes.

1423
The third tunnel at Blackwall will replace the existing substandard northern tunnel. It will help the development of Greenwich peninsula and reduce long peak-hour queues. The aim is to start work in the mid 1990s but that depends on detailed engineering and the availability of funds. It will cost about £130 million at current prices.
As I said earlier, I believe that it would be well worthwhile all of your Lordships studying the documents which I have with me now. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that I only received them shortly before I repeated the Statement and have not yet had time to study them. However, from what I have seen of them, I believe that they will provide answers to most of the questions raised.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I give a general welcome to the Statement which my noble friend repeated to your Lordships. Let me say at the outset that it is a limited Statement. It is the expression of a new initiative. I believe that that is what we have been looking for, particularly in terms of road congestion in London. That is to be welcomed.
I was disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, described it as a non-Statement because it cannot be that. If we are to make progress towards improving the movement of road traffic, whether goods or passenger traffic, then we must regard the roads as the highways for movement and not for parking, stopping and so on. It is the initiative and provisional conclusion—and I think that those were the words used by the Minister when repeating the Statement—of the four assessment studies that some 300 miles of priority routeing should be designated for the movement of road traffic. I very much welcome that and that the fact that a Traffic Director for that specific scheme is to be appointed as a liaison officer.
I should like to raise with my noble friend the question as to what exactly are the reserve powers which are to be dedicated to that director, but I am not asking him for an answer this afternoon. I should be quite happy if he would write to me about that.
I want to touch very quickly on two other points. As regards the consultation period, we have been talking about confusion and congestion in London for years and years. All kinds of ideas have been put forward and those who have taken part in those discussions will recognise that the period until the end of February is quite adequate to give confirmation to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's provisional conclusion or to make changes. Therefore I do not quarrel with that.
I ask my noble friend whether or not he agrees that he has today announced a number of measures which, in the short term and some in the longer term, are initiatives to alleviate—and not totally to conquer—the chronic congestion in London caused laregly by parked vehicles impeding free flow? Will he also say that these measures are not to be the only measures for consideration by his department in the future to make an even more significant impact on the problem in central London?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his warmer reception to the Statement. This is a strategic approach to improving traffic and transport conditions in London. The feature of the approach is to make the best use of existing roads and cause the least demolition of housing and so on. The priority routes also aim to make the best use of capacity. We are continuing works programmes to eliminate stress points and bottlenecks on trunk roads and to use new technologies to improve London's traffic-light systems to reduce delays. What we have said about parking, wheel-clamping and towing away will be necessary on those routes in order to keep the traffic flowing well. Therefore, there must be a strong deterrent to stop people parking on those 300 miles of red routes.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, many of us who live in South London or in South-West London have felt anxious about the Statement today. Our houses have been blighted for 18 months or more. We hoped to learn today which houses are permanently blighted and which houses can now be relieved from blight. However, I am afraid that only from a study of the documents will it be possible to get some knowledge of that.
The Ministry has always had in mind for many years the idea of a south circular road to match the North Circular Road. Three of the four assessment studies dealt with the south circular road. I ask the noble Viscount whether the Government have entirely dropped the idea of a south circular road. Can we breathe again on that?
I should also like to ask the Minister what is the scope of the improvement to the new roads? Will the enormous road widening schemes entail the knocking down of thousands of houses which line those routes?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as I said, I have not had time to read the documents but I can tell your Lordships that in principle the purpose of my right honourable friend making the Statement today is to reduce uncertainty and the effect of blight. My understanding is that knocking down houses is the last thing that we wish to do. Existing roads will be used and improved as much as possible, but the details are in the document and the document is still there for discussion.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as one who is sometimes a passenger on public transport and the rest of the time a motorist in London, this is an extremely welcome Statement and seems, on consideration, to contain a great deal of meat. Given that the recommendations of the consultants have apparently been published for 18 months, I do not believe that there is a great deal of hesitation in calling for early consultation. However, your Lordships might be somewhat reassured if my noble friend could tell us whether the routes eventually chosen, where they are new routes, will be subject to any planning procedures or whether they will simply result as an edict from the Department of Transport.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as regards trunk roads, procedures will be under the Highways Act which will of course include public inquiries where necessary. For local roads, the ordinary planning procedures will be followed.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am sure that that is reassuring.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, to the extent that the Statement which we have just heard and the supporting documents recognise that there is a serious traffic problem in London, it is undoubtedly to be welcomed. To the extent that it summarises proposals which have already been made and adds a number of new ones, it gives us a good deal of food for thought. However, what perplexes me, as has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Tordoff and others who have spoken, is the problem of how this will all be co-ordinated.
When we debated the wider issues of transport last Monday—and the noble Viscount responded to that debate—he said that he agreed with the views of Sub-Committee B that in Britain we should have a positive and concerted transport policy. I do not quite understand why there should be a director-general for the priority routes and I cannot understand what happens to the other routes. Is it not conceivable that if we have traffic flowing freely through the priority routes, that will merely add to the congestion on other routes? Who will take care of that?
Therefore, while I welcome the document as recognising the problem and for mentioning a number of matters which have been brought to our attention—some previously brought to our attention and some new ones—I ask how this will effectively be brought together?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my right honourable friend wants the authorities with existing responsibilities to work together for the common good. He will provide the strategic framework within which the local authorities and organisations can work. As I have already said, the proposal is to appoint not a director-general but a Traffic Director for these red routes, with a small staff to help with the necessary co-ordination. So far as the local authorities are concerned, there is a proposal that they should review yellow lines so that they are normally provided only where parking would cause an obstruction or hazard to safety. Again, as I said, these matters are still open for consultation and discussion.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the Cromwell Road will be a red route, thereby preventing the ice cream vans from parking on double white lines for long periods without anybody seeming to care about them? With any luck, they will not be able to do so in the future.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall have to write to my noble friend about the Cromwell Road. I have the map in front of me, but I cannot at this moment say whether it will be one of the red routes. If it is
1426
one of the red routes, I can assure him that the ice cream vans will not be there.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wonder whether I may just indulge myself for a second and ask for clarification on the answer the noble Viscount gave on the additional rail link. Will it be an underground link and part of the Underground system or will it be a British Rail link?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the answer to that question. I shall have to write to the noble Lord.

Appropriation (No. 4) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
4.51 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I have been waiting patiently for over half an hour for this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his summary of the Supplementary Estimate which this order will approve. We have been told by him that the substantial part of the special funding requested of Parliament by the Department of Economic Development is committed to two very important privatisation programmes completed earlier in the year. And it is agreed that it is vital for the economy of Belfast and the economy of Northern Ireland generally that Short Brothers plc and Harland and Wolff Holdings plc should be trading successfully and at least maintaining their present labour force.
I should say from this side of the House that we condemn the bomb outrages at the Short premises recently. I hear that there may be grounds—and I put it no higher than that—for some concern about Harland and Wolff Holdings, or rather about one or two of its subsidiaries. I should therefore welcome an assurance from the noble Lord that there are no grounds for anxiety.
We welcome very much the additional expenditure on industrial research and development. This must surely be right. The comparative studies reveal continuing low average productivity in Northern Ireland. I believe it is around 80 per cent. of that of Britain and not more than just over half that of West Germany. I read somewhere that this is due in part to the low value that has been attached in the past to research and development and in part to the low education of the labour force and training. This is obviously a point for the Department of Education and we will come to that department later on this evening.
Turning to the additional funding requested by the Department of Health and Social Services, high unemployment is an outstanding characteristic of Northern Ireland and it is therefore not surprising that we see an inheritance of poverty in many parts of the Province. As the noble Lord is the Minister in charge of this department, there are just two matters that I should like to draw to his attention this evening.

1427
First, it must be worrying that up to £5·6 million of family credit may not have been taken up, notwithstanding the publicity campaign to which the Minister referred. Manifestly something is wrong somewhere. Is the department investigating in detail why there should be this apparent low take-up? Do the overall statistics on uptake conceal wide variations between urban and rural areas and between office and office within the same district? Perhaps the Minister can assure the House that the department is asking the right questions and seeking the correct answers.
Secondly, I want to refer to the home help service. There is no need to emphasise the important role that this service plays in community care. However, I become anxious when I hear many voices proclaiming the inadequacies of the service in parts of Northern Ireland because it is under-resourced. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether it is accepted that it is under-resourced in parts of the Province.
I am also wondering whether the Minister knows why the Eastern Health Board recently refused to receive a deputation from the home helpers whom it employs. It seems to me that the board is acting rather insensitively. Unless the Minister is able to give a satisfactory explanation for the board's action in refusing to receive this deputation, we urge him to take steps to find out in some detail what is happening in the eastern board and, if the complaints have substance, the department should spare no effort in correcting them.
Clearly there is no shortage of problems and no absence of challenges, but I do not propose to trouble the Minister further this evening as the House needs to go on to the discussion of the education reform order, which is the next business on the Order Paper.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to start by warmly welcoming the fairly modest amount of good news that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was able to give us about economic development and job creation. Beyond that, I wish to raise two points of which the Minister has already had notice. I am sure that he will be just as helpful as his predecessors in office were in answering points of that kind.
The first concerns afforestation in the poorer farming areas of the western counties of Northern Ireland. The noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, raised this matter in your Lordships' House in a debate on 3rd February 1988. He then suggested that European Community Directive No. 1820 should be applied to these counties. This is all the more reasonable as it already applies in the adjoining counties of the Irish Republic. When the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, came to reply for the Government, he spoke for 30 minutes but devoted only two sentences to the directive and indeed brushed it completely aside. Surely it is the duty of the Department of Agriculture and Forestry to make sure that Northern Ireland gets its fair share of whatever EC grants may be available.
I should like to ask what progress has been made since early last year. Will the directive, known as
1428
the Western Package, soon be applied in Northern Ireland? What steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to ensure that this matter is worked upon in a proper regional manner and is not hidebound by national boundaries? This is all the more important because of the continuing high unemployment and limited industrial opportunities in the western counties of Northern Ireland.
My next point is totally different. Politically motivated violence and terrorism have continued, alas, for 20 years in Northern Ireland. The present right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State recently made a somewhat controversial reference to this. He aroused so much comment that I need not quote his words. Suffice it to say that the total eradication of terrorists from within a democratic state is a very difficult matter. This is why recent proposals to restrain the worst excesses of internal conflict may be so important. The Geneva and Hague Conventions have since 1864 done much to restrain the barbarity of war between states. A similar approach to internal strife has been taken by Dr. Hans Peter Gasser of the International Committee of the Red Cross and by Professor Theodore Meron of New York University. They separately published a code of conduct and a draft model declaration on internal strife.
These documents apply existing principles of international and national laws and human rights treaties to situations of insurgency or terrorist struggle. They apply equally to governments and armed oppositions. They stipulate, for example: first, civilians, and especially women and children, must be spared; secondly, hostages must not be taken and opponents must not be made to disappear by killing; thirdly, the wounded and sick must receive prompt medical help even if they are enemies; fourthly, prisoners must be treated humanely; fifthly, the use of force must be limited to the minimum strictly necessary.
Have Her Majesty's Government made a study of these rather new documents? If not, will they do so? Do they think that they may be applicable and indeed helpful in the Northern Ireland situation? I entirely accept that principles of the sort I have outlined have in general, and usually, governed the operations of the security forces. Nevertheless, it could well be of benefit to adopt such codes of conduct in a formal way.
It would further expose the barbarity of many recent terrorist attacks to the full force of world public opinion. It could help the Government with their sometimes difficult relations with Irish Americans and other members of the Irish diaspora throughout the world. Lastly, it could strengthen the hands of the doves as opposed to the hawks within individual terrorist groups. I look forward very much to hearing the Minister's reply.
5 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for the way in which he has introduced this draft appropriation order. Of the only two Votes that we are considering this afternoon I have one point to make on the first, it being

1429
under the heading of the Department of Economic Development. At the risk of wearying your Lordships perhaps I might be permitted to return to the subject of the European monetary system and the exchange rate mechanism.
These are points about which I understand there are in some areas certain divergences of opinion. I have raised the matter three or perhaps four times before in your Lordships' House. On those occasions I was referring to the disadvantage that we suffer in Northern Ireland due to the imbalance brought about by monetary compensatory amounts. Of course there is no Vote on agriculture this afternoon, but perhaps I could mention briefly the effect that this has on business.
Quite a few of my friends and colleagues are engaged in businesses in Northern Ireland that export to quite a large extent to the Republic of Ireland. The varying disparities between the pound and the punt make it extremely difficult for them to do advanced planning and to price a contract in such a way that they can be sure of getting a reasonable profit margin on it. When one considers that for quite a period of time one punt was equivalent to between 68 and 72 pence and now it is worth about 92 to 93 pence, that is a substantial difference. I can make the difference between whether a contract turns out to be profitable or unprofitable.
I would urge Her Majesty's Government under this heading of economic development to give careful consideration to that point. Perhaps we in Northern Ireland are more vulnerable to this varying disparity than other industries in the rest of the United Kingdom because of our proximity to the Republic of Ireland. Of course we suffer from the same difficulties as businesses in Great Britain when exporting to Europe.
Whenever I have asked about this before I have been told from the Government Front Bench that we will join the European monetary system when the time is right. That somehow rings a bell. It sounds familiar. I have heard it elsewhere. When is the time going to be right? I respectfully suggest that perhaps it was right the first time that I raised this two to three years ago, when our inflation rate was commendably low and our currency standing was perhaps more favourable than it may be now or may be in the future.
Turning now to the other Vote, we are considering this afternoon on the Department of Health and Social Services, I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I return briefly to the subject of the hospice movement. First, I should like to thank him sincerely for the encouraging statement that he made last week over the general budget for health and social services. I think that he has done a good job for Northern Ireland in bringing about that particular budget in the face of all the competition that exists from other spending departments.
To the best of my knowledge he did not say anything specific about the hospice movement. Certainly I have heard nothing since I left home yesterday morning. If the noble Lord has any information that he can give us this afternoon I shall most gladly convey it to my friends and colleagues
1430
when I go home tomorrow. Maybe it is too soon for him to be able to say anything. If in fact he and his department and his colleagues are not yet in a position to make up their minds, perhaps I should mention briefly that when I was speaking in the debate on the hospice movement inititated by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on 31st October I may not have made it clear that the hospices are not looking for unlimited financial aid. They are not looking for open-ended financial aid. Indeed, that could possibly be counterproductive because it might militate against the very good public support from voluntary fund raising that they have already.
Rather I think I quoted Scotland, where the Secretary of State agreed in that instance to subvent the hospices pound for pound up to 50 per cent. and 50 per cent. was the limit. This may not be the ideal formula for Northern Ireland. I thank that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, when he was speaking in that same debate felt that it might not be ideal. However, something equivalent would be needed, because the important thing is that the hospice movement should be able to get away from crisis management.
Like any business it ought to be in a position to make a realistic cash flow projection and therefore draw up its plans not just on a month-to-month basis, watching how far the bank account has gone into the red, but rather be able to plan ahead as to progress and development. I feel that would not discourage voluntary public effort, but encourage it. If it felt that the hospice movement was firmly founded and had a base level that made it financially secure, then the public would know that any funds raised by voluntary effort would be going to an organisation that was in a viable state rather than just trying to tide over from one crisis to another.
What is needed is a two-pronged effort with the Government and voluntary workers operating in partnership—in double harness, so to speak. That would encourage the movement and give it security. I ask the Minister to bear that point in mind. If he is not yet ready to make a statement on the subject, then, when preparing his decision on that matter, I shall be grateful if he will bear in mind this feeling of partnership and working together because I believe that is something to which the general public in Northern Ireland would respond.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am very conscious of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is extremely anxious that irrelevant topics are not introduced into this debate on the appropriation order. I believe what I have to say is not wholly irrelevant, but, should the noble Lord think otherwise, I hope he will forgive me as I shall be extremely brief and I seek only a brief answer from him. In passing, I hope that this matter was not touched on when I had briefly to leave to make a telephone call.
I hope noble Lords will have noticed reports in yesterday's press which reveal that Northern Ireland has a lower overall crime rate than any of the 42 police force areas in England and Wales. The rate for theft is particularly commendable; the murder rate is of course high as a result of terrorism.

1431
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the murder rate in Northern Ireland, despite terrorism, is lower than in the United States of America.
There are many people abroad, mainly in the United States, who take every opportunity to blacken the name of Ulster, although in my experience continental Europeans are much more understanding and sympathetic. Unhappily, there is a great and growing number of people in this country who also jump at every opportunity to run down Ulster, the better to justify their secret yearning to sell the Province down the river. Will the noble Lord and the Northern Ireland Office go all out to frustrate their knavish tricks by giving the maximum publicity both at home and abroad to the commendably low crime rate in Northern Ireland, upon which the people of Ulster must be congratulated?
5.15 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I was taken by surprise as much as other noble Lords by the fact that we had a little interregnum in the middle of the debate. On behalf of the Front Bench on this side of the House I apologise for it and I assure the House that I had absolutely no bearing on the matter.
In introducing his remarks, I am particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies agreed that Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff should be put firmly on a suitable financial footing. This apppropriation order seeks to do that. However, it is only fair to warn the House that in this connection there may be one or two more appropriation orders, though probably not this year. Almost certainly they will refer to Harland and Wolff and Shorts.
Harland and Wolff has a proud history and has occupied an important position in the Northern Ireland economy. Its transfer to the private sector offers a genuine and real chance for a new beginning for those who work there. The workforce is particularly important, and I agree with the noble Lord opposite on that point. The Government have promised a significant amount of support, and the future of the company and its subsidiaries is now firmly in the hands of the management and workforce, which is where it should be.
The noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned the recent reports of low average productivity in Northern Ireland. I agree. The Government were not unduly surprised at that situation. I welcome the fact that the local chapter of the Confederation of British Industry has taken note of the problem and is currently investigating ways to encourage firms to do something about it. The Government will do all they can to help in this very necessary endeavour.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked me what steps were being taken to ascertain the reasons for the much lower than expected take-up rate of family credit. When I first arrived at the department I was very conscious of the low level of take-up of this particular benefit. I discovered that at the beginning
1432
of this year a personal letter was sent to every family on the child benefit register. That did not do particularly well. Therefore, in order to encourage more claims I was concerned to have a second campaign. This took place shortly after I arrived. It involved television and press advertising; there was also special publicity provided to employers. I am glad to say that claims received as a result of this campaign—at least I assume that is the reason—have risen by 43 per cent. a week; that is from 700 to 1,000.
The reasons why some families do not claim family credit are not known, but using such publicity measures will encourage claims from those who think they may be entitled. I am intending to have another publicity campaign early in the New Year. We do not have an answer to the question of whether family credit is dependent on the area in which the claimants live and work, because it is a centralised benefit. It would need an enormous amount of research to reach an answer. Having listened to the comments of noble Lords I shall look into the question of whether such research would be productive.
I am sure the House will know that I had the privilege only last week of announcing an extra £84 million for the health and social services in Northern Ireland. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, for welcoming that additional sum. In making that announcement, I made it quite clear that I should like to see some of this extra money going to the social services and to the provision of home helps in particular. That is about as much as I can do to by way of encouragement. I have no means of enforcing such desires. The level of resources devoted to the home help services is a matter for each health and social services board to determine.
The demand is increasing. None the less resources are finite and some boards have had to review the level of provision. There has been no cut in the level of provision in any board area compared with last year. The Eastern Board—in particular in the South Down and Ards unit of management—has found it necessary to reassess who is getting home help and the number of hours for which such help is given. The Eastern Board refused to receive a deputation from the home helpers in its employment. That is a matter not for me but for the board to answer. I shall endeavour to find out and I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised again, as he pointed out, the matter of afforestation. The United Kingdom has recently requested approval by the European Commission under the forestry action programme of both the woodland planting grants scheme and the farm woodlands scheme. These grants, which are of course applicable in Northern Ireland, are in several respects more generous than those provided under the programme and should, if they receive approval, bring planting on either side of the Border into much the same financial regime. We have no plans to extend our forestry grants further either in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland.

1433
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also referred to internal strife and terrorism. In this connection I welcome the condemnation by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, of the recent bomb outrage at the Harbour Airport in Belfast, which belongs to Short Brothers. The United Kingdom has a tradition of protecting and advancing human rights by means of specific laws and commitments. I note that those laws and commitments are not always totally approved of either by the European Court of Justice or by organisations such as Amnesty International. That is why we continue to look both at the operation of such laws and at the formulation of new laws. It is important to make the point when we are dealing with terrorism that, if we as a government and our agencies such as the RUC or indeed the Army do not abide by the laws in force at any moment, we descend to the level of the terrorists themselves. That must be wrong and it is something which the Government are determined to avoid.
While tackling a major terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland, the Government have always been ready to investigate matters of public concern and to take independent advice on measures necessary to safeguard the individual's rights. There is a proven record of removing justifiable grievances, extending civil rights and reconciling emergency measures with respect for individual liberties. We shall look most carefully at any studies that have a bearing on these important issues.
The note that I have in front of me to answer the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, on the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS says, as he suspected, that the Government have undertaken to join the exchange rate mechanism when the time is right. I could put a tiny gloss on that because of the way the noble Lord spoke about this arrangement. We have been waiting for the removal of credit controls in Europe, which I understand will take place within the next 18 months. In the meantime, as the noble Lord mentioned, we have a different level of inflation—although I am glad to say that it is coming down—from that which pertained when he first raised the point. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it quite clear that these two matters will have to be taken into account in deciding when the time is right. Much as I regret it, I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and put a date on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, also mentioned funding arrrangements for hospices. There are 1⅛ hospices, because, as the noble Lord will know, the construction of a new one in Londonderry is due to start soon. I am convinced of the need to change the funding arrangements for hospices in Northern Ireland to put them on a sound financial basis. This needs a tripartite discussion between the department, the boards themselves and the hospice movement. This is currently going on. I hope to make an announcement about the Northern Ireland position before the end of the year. I should not like to be any more definite at this stage because there are still agreements to be entered into.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, is the noble Lord referring to the calendar year or the financial year?
Lord Skelmersdale: The financial year, my Lords.
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that we must take note of the many good and exciting things happening in Northern Ireland. He referred to the fact that crime rates in Northern Ireland are lower than those in Great Britain and the United States. The Government look for every opportunity to publicise the good points in Northern Ireland. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is currently making a special study so that whenever we go out and about in the course of our business, whether in either House of Parliament or abroad, we can use these points to prove that the negative side of Northern Ireland, which I must freely admit exists, is not nearly as negative as is sometimes portrayed in the media generally.
I think that I have answered most of the points raised. If I have missed any I shall be only too pleased to write to the noble Lord concerned. In the meantime, although the order is slightly complicated and although two different areas of expenditure need to be looked at, I believe that noble Lords consider it to be in order. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
5.27 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd November be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for very many years the education service in Northern Ireland has maintained, through the dedication of its teachers, high standards of academic achievement. It has initiated curriculum development of national significance. In a society sometimes afflicted by unrest and mistrust schools have provided the caring context in which children from both communities can be brought closer together both physically and in terms of greater mutual understanding. Education in Northern Ireland has not simply kept going; it has achieved, it has innovated and most importantly it has recognised and accepted the difficult challenge of being part of the process of reconciliation.
Despite the difficulties of the past 20 years, Northern Ireland is no Cinderella in educational achievement. For example, a greater proportion of its young people go into higher education than would be the case for Great Britain as a whole—21·5 per cent. compared with 15·6 per cent. for Great Britain. It also has a higher proportion of school-leavers with A-level qualifications—26 per cent. compared with 19 per cent. in England and Wales.
Where the abilities of its young people and the strength of its educational system are among the Province's greatest assets, we should not seek change for change's sake. Equally we cannot afford to be complacent or to let our justified pride in the high standards achieved by some obscure the need to help all pupils, whatever their background and abilities, to achieve their maximum potential. In an increasingly

1435
competitive world education must change if it is to equip our young people with the knowledge and skills they need for the future.
The draft Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order which I bring before your Lordships today will enhance the educational opportunities available to the children of Northern Ireland and give parents the same degree of choice and influence in their children's education as has been provided by the 1988 Education Reform Act for England and Wales.
However, let me state at the outset that this order is not simply the imposition of a national pattern on a distinctive regional system. The provisions which it contains are the product of an extensive process of consultation and discussion conducted by my ministerial colleague the Under-Secretary with special responsibility for education over a period of some 21 months. As a result of that consultation, significant changes have been made, Moreover, I should like to point out that at each and every stage when it was possible to alter the arrangements they were indeed altered. New provisions have been introduced and others have been adapted more fully to meet the needs and concerns of the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that the order represents a genuine matching of the strengths and the values of the education system in Northern Ireland with a general thrust of national education policy. The order also reflects the Government's commitment to two guiding principles: first, to raise educational standards for all pupils and particularly for those of lesser ability who may at present leave school with little tangible evidence of the time which they have spent there; secondly, to secure greater choice and involvement for parents in the education of their children.
The order will enable these aims to be realised in a number of ways. It introduces new arrangements for the curriculum to be followed by all pupils aged between five and 16 so that every pupil is guaranteed access to a curriculum which is broad balanced and coherent. The order lays down that the curriculum must include six broad areas of study within which pupils will follow a number of compulsory subjects. In addition, noble Lords will note the inclusion of six important educational themes which will be interwoven with the compulsory subjects. These themes are information technology, education for mutual understanding, cultural heritage, health education, economic awareness and careers education.
The order also provides for the assessment of each child's progress at certain stages of their school career. It will give parents more information about their children's progress. It provides parents with access to a wider choice of school by linking admissions to the physical capacity of the school rather than to arbitrary administrative quotas; and as for school governors, the order will also give parents more influence on and responsibility for the conduct of the school and its financial management through the introduction of delegated budgets.
I know that the House will welcome in particular the new arrangements which the order contains for
1436
integrated education. It is a theme which has been running through your Lordships' debates on the subject for several years. The new arrangements will make it easier for parents who wish their children to be educated with children of both traditions in Northern Ireland to have those aspirations met. This part of the order has attracted considerable attention and widespread support.
During the consultative process there was overwhelming support for the Government's proposal to introduce grant-maintained integrated schools and many respondents encouraged the Government to extend the provisions further. This we have done by means of three main measures. First, the grant-maintained integrated school remains central to the Government's policy for integrated education but the legislation will now enable these schools to be set up from new as well as by means of transitional procedures.
Secondly, we have retained and strengthened the provisions in the present education law which enable existing schools to acquire controlled integrated status. The existing legislation for controlled integrated schools was introduced in 1978 by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. I should like to pay tribute to him at this point for having taken that action. These provisions were in a sense ahead of their time, but the noble Lord will have noted that we have retained them in the order. In keeping with the general principle that parents should have greater involvement in their children's education, the new provisions will make controlled integrated status more accessible by introducing parent-led procedures identical to those for grant-maintained integrated status.
Thirdly, to underpin these initiatives the legislation will also introduce a statutory duty whereby the Department of Education will be required to encourage and facilitate the development of integrated Education. It would be optimistic to suggest that integrated education is the panacea for all Northern Ireland's ills, though most would accept that it has a part to play in overcoming the divisions in Northern Ireland society. But there is no question of government imposing integrated education on anyone. On the contrary, the Government continue to recognise and respect the equal right of parents to choose the form of education for their children and there is no implication that integrated schools are regarded as intrinsically superior.
The order is a major piece of legislation. Indeed, one has only to look at the thickness of the document to appreciate that fact. However, your Lordships will find that three other important features are noteworthy. First, the order provides for the establishment of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools as a statutory body. The creation of the council arises out of consultation with the Roman Catholic Church authorities and will benefit the management of schools in the Catholic-maintained sector.
Secondly, the education and library boards will be given important additional responsibilities for curriculum support and in-service training which recognise their central role in helping all schools to deliver the new curriculum requirements. Thirdly,

1437
the order provides for changes to the management and funding of institutions of further education which will enable colleges to meet more effectively the needs of the communities and the businesses which they serve.
The order we are considering today will have far-reaching effects on the education system in Northern Ireland. Its influence on the quality and variety of education provision in Northern Ireland will extend well into the next century. It is not an exercise that the Government entered upon lightly or conducted without the most painstaking care and attention. Those who contributed to the debate were listened to and, as I said, substantial changes were made. The draft legislation which has emerged is better and stronger for the input from all those with a stake in the future of education. I am honoured to commend the order to the House for approval in the firm conviction that it will make a major contribution to the future wellbeing and prosperity of the young people of Northern Ireland.
I am well aware that there has been extensive discussion since the draft order was published in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I have no doubt that the debate this afternoon will reflect some of the concerns which have been expressed. I must say that I look forward enormously to the debate. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd November be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
5.38 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, once again I thank the Minister for explaining the contents of the order which is before the House. It is a long order containing about 167 articles and nine schedules. Indeed, the Minister correctly described it as a "major piece of legislation". I agree that there have been many changes since the first proposals were published. But I must say to the Minister that there is in general much criticism of what has been described as the "inadequacy" of the consultation which attended the preparation of the draft order, although I appreciate that he has described the consultations as having been exhaustive. That criticism is not simply confined to the Ulster Teachers' Union; it is a pretty general criticism.
There is another general point that I should like to make. In common with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and others, I think that it is necessary to protest that legislation of this magnitude cannot be scrutinised and cannot be amended by Parliament. This point has often been raised during discussions on draft orders. However, it is particularly relevant in the context of this debate.
On 12th October the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Education and Science said that final decisions on education reform were, of course, for Parliament. To the extent that that statement implies—as I think it does—that Parliament would have powers to amend the order, it is a misleading statement. I say that because we know in fact that Parliament can only take one decision; that is, to accept or reject the order in toto.
1438
Therefore we have this situation: Parliament is told by Ministers that there have been meaningful and exhaustive consultations with all concerned; but, at the same time, the impression is given within the Province—and, it came widely to be believed—that the decision would eventually be for Parliament. That is an unsatisfactory position.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said recently that the young people of Northern Ireland are the Province's greatest natural asset. He had good reasons for saying that because Northern Ireland has the highest birth rate in the European Community. Therefore there is and there will remain in the Province a large pool of children and young people seeking improved education and eventually further education and employment.
The Minister made the point that in comparison with England and Wales the Northern Ireland education system serves the gifted child very well indeed. That is welcome of course, but when we study the figures relating to those who leave school with no graded results we find that there is a substantially greater degree of under-achievement in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales. Moreover, while 19 per cent. of those leaving Protestant schools do so without qualifications, the number leaving Catholic schools without qualifications increases to 25 per cent.
The first question to be asked is whether and to what extent the order addresses the problem of under-achievement. The Minister described that as the department's first objective. I understand from those who advise me that it is not clear that the order, which relies so heavily on open enrolment, will achieve that objective. There is an urgent need to remedy the position not only on social and humanitarian grounds, but to ensure that the Province, which is on the periphery of Europe, is properly equipped with a highly educated labour force to enable it to compete successfully with foreign rivals in attracting inward investment on the scale required.
The draft order contains a section dealing with further and higher education. I have looked in this connection at Article 100 in particular. That is a new article which is obviously welcome. It provides that each education board shall ensure, in accordance with arrangements approved by the department, the provision of adequate facilities for further education. I am not certain what is the significance of this reference to the arrangements to be approved by the department, but the position should become clearer when we know something about the criteria which the department will apply. Will the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, indicate this evening what the criteria will be?
I turn briefly to the other end of the spectrum; namely, nursery education upon which the order is silent. Already in Northern Ireland there is an immense gap in this sector. Will the Minister give us an explanation of why nursery education has been omitted from the order? Is it intended to deal with it in a children's order or Bill in due course? If that is so, when will that legislation come along?

1439
There are three matters on which I should like to congratulate the Government. Like most Members of your Lordships' House, I fully support the position taken in relation to integrated schools, which is spelled out in Article 64(1). However, the Minister will know that the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education and the Belfast Charitable Trust for Integrated Education are still troubled about a number of issues. There is concern about the definition, which we cannot amend. Only time will tell whether the department has the definition right.
I should be grateful if the Minister, in his reply to the debate, would confirm three specific points. First, will he confirm that the school governors will not be prohibited from giving preference in the schools enrolment programme to under-represented minorities in order to achieve what is described by my correspondents as a "balanced enrolment", though the department may not be entirely happy with that term.
Secondly, will the Minister confirm that the membership of the board of governors will reflect in equal proportion the two main traditions so that the board of governors will have a genuine commitment to the objectives of integrated education? Thirdly, will the Minister confirm that the Government are satisfied that there is no potential overlap or potential conflict between the theory and practice of an integrated school as embedded in the order and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Northern Ireland (Constitution) Act 1973? I am sure that assurance will be forthcoming, but there is some concern in some quarters. I should be grateful for confirmation of those three specific matters.
The inclusion of education for mutual understanding and cultural heritage in the common curriculum of all schools deserves full praise. The implications of that legislative change could over time be very great indeed. I note the comments of the Ulster teachers, but I urge them to rise to the challenge and look to the future.
Finally, it gives me considerable pleasure to see the place which has been given to the Irish language in the core curriculum. I am happy to acknowledge that on that issue the department listened to the criticism levelled at the omission of the Irish language from the original proposals. That is an immense step forward. It is a pity that there is no reference to the Irish language as such in Article 5(5); one has to read the small print of column 2 of Schedule 1 before one stumbles across the Irish language.
I have had a careful look at the definition of an Irish-speaking school. It is similar to that of a Welsh-speaking school, which was a definition acceptable to your Lordships' House when the Education Reform Bill was before it. However, it would be helpful, for those concerned with the well being of the Irish language if the Minister would explain the significance of the phrase,
"taught wholly or partly in Irish".
I hope that there will be no shortage of suitable teaching material so that the Province can take full
1440
advantage of this important legislative change. I am reliably advised that there is one field where the department needs urgently to look closely at what can be done by way of improving the position. I am told that there is a considerable shortage of in-service training courses for teachers of Irish in primary schools. There is a need for such courses and it would be appreciated if the department would have another look at the position and make a positive proposal.
Other Members of your Lordships' House are anxious to take part in the debate, and I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. Earlier on I should have joined with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in paying tribute to the teachers and to their contribution over the years in the Province. I am far from convinced that the order has done all that it could for the needs of the less able students, children of Northern Ireland. But it introduces a number of legislative changes which we welcome. They will be a challenge to the education and library boards which will still have a continuing role to play in Northern Ireland.
Our hope must be that the order will achieve a dual purpose: greater fulfilment for the individual child, while ensuring that he is well equipped for the task of earning his living in a highly competitive world. With those observations, we are pleased to welcome the order.
5.51 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I am amazed to find that a document of this size should be a regulation which we cannot amend or, by convention in this House, reject. I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, whether there is any precedent for a document of this kind being presented as a regulation. It is in fact a Bill. There is no question about that. The fact that a great deal of it—though by no means all—is similar to the Education Act passed for England and Wales is no excuse for not having a proper parliamentary debate. It cannot be described as anything other than a Bill.
It is not only in this particular case that one feels it is not possible for Parliament to do its proper job in relation to this important piece of legislation because it comes to us as a regulation. But if it is to be a precedent for the way in which new laws are to be introduced, then it is an extremely important challenge to the rights and responsiblities of Parliament to deal with legislation properly.
As we have understood them in the past, regulations have been relatively minor matters of considerable detail arising out of legislation which has been thoroughly debated in both Houses of Parliament. But this has not. I should be glad, if only for the sake of the record, if the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, would comment on this from a constitutional point of view.
That said, like the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in some respects I wish to welcome this legislation. I am tempted to say that it is not the first time that the legislation proposed for Northern Ireland has been a considerable improvement on similar

1441
legislation for England and Wales. Further, it seems to me that the curriculum requirements are a great deal more acceptable than the curriculum requirements, from my point of view at any rate, in the legislation for England and Wales. It appears to me not only that there has been the introduction into the essential curriculum first studies of the environment and society, secondly creative and expressive studies, and thirdly, language studies. The latter is not related to one language, as it is for England and Wales. But there is also the very interesting Schedule I in which the "contributory"—I think that is the word used—subjects are included.
I thought that when I looked at the 28 contributory subjects this provided what I had always asked for in relation to the English and Welsh legislation. It provided an opportunity for much greater choice and variation according to the interests and needs of the different children being taught. Reading it again, I was not quite sure—and I cannot believe it—that the contributory subjects are not all to be regarded as compulsory. I really cannot believe that under the heading of "Science and Technology", every child is to take science, biology, chemistry, physics, technology and design, craft design and technology, and home economics. If that list is to be compulsory for science and technology subjects, to put it mildly I think that the students will be pretty busy, considering all the other subjects included. The ones listed add up to a total of 28.
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to confirm that there is an element of flexibility. That is what many of us asked for in relation to the 1988 Act and we did not get it. If it is incorporated in this legislation for the Northern Irish programme, it is a very good idea indeed. I congratulate whomever was responsible for it. Perhaps in due course we on this side of the Irish Channel may be able to benefit from it.
I remember acutely some of the arguments we had for example about the arts side. The list in this order under the general heading of "Creative and Expressive Studies" seems to me a far better approach than the more rigid and limited approach reflected in the Act for England and Wales. To that extent, if my interpretation is right, the position for Northern Ireland will be an improvement.
I also wish to agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said about nursery education, particularly in an area where there is a great deal of social disturbance and deprivation. Nursery education is of the greatest importance. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that there will be improved and increased provision for nursery education throughout the Province.
I wish particularly to concentrate on a subject to which the noble Lord also made reference. It seems to me to be of the greatest importance and I am sure that everybody in your Lordships' House agrees with that. It is the development of integrated schools. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, nobody really believes that integrated schools by themselves will cure all the ills of the Province. But it is common sense surely that if boys and girls from early childhood are educated together, there is a much better chance that when they grow up they will not
1442
be at daggers drawn between the two communities in the way that they are to a great extent at present. If children from the age of five—if they start school at five in the Province as well as in England and Wales—have been together as school children from that age that must ease the tensions later on when they grow to adulthood. At present the integration happens at the university stage, but that is surely too late to overcome the built-in antagonism about which we know all too much.
I give a great welcome to the Government's support for integrated schools. However there are one or two important questions. As has already been said, a definition would be welcome. Again, whether that can be incorporated in the legislation, I do not know. We cannot put forward any amendments, so there is nothing we can do about it. However, we can press the Government to make sure that it is clearly understood what the term "integrated schools" really means.
There is then the question of the governors and the balanced representation for governors of integrated schools. Is that a statutory right and not just a general wish? Is there a statutory right for balanced representation of the two communities in integrated schools? Surely this makes sense and is a necessary requirement if integrated schools are to be anything other than a pious hope. Under the conditions of Northern Ireland there will be—we know this is so—a great many people who will not wish to see the development and extension of integrated schools. Those schools will need special support. This is a quite different situation to that pertaining anywhere else in the United Kingdom. We must lean over backwards to ensure that there is no way in which the intention behind integrated schooling can be frustrated by the minority or majority of people—I do not know which it is—who will not wish to see this development go ahead.
There is a further difficult question for the Government connected with this matter which is the right of governors to turn down a child who wants to attend a school if that seriously upsets the balance between the two communities within the school. I can see why that is a difficult problem for the Government. I know that under normal circumstances there are two strong arguments against doing what I am now asking the Government to do, which is to give governors the right to turn down a youngster simply because he or she does not belong to the right religious community in order to maintain balanced representation. However, in Northern Ireland we are dealing with an exceptional set of circumstances.
One could say that the right of governors to refuse a child in order to maintain a balanced representation of the youngsters in schools is a form of quota system. I have always been against quotas in normal circumstances. However, the difference is that, if one opposes the idea of quotas in a commercial undertaking, in industry or in a university, one opposes it in an institution of which the primary purpose has nothing to do with equality. The primary purpose is the provision of a university education or the provision of goods or the services that the industry is undertaking. But the primary

1443
purpose of an integrated school is to produce integration. Its purpose is also of course to produce education, but integration is what it has been set up to achieve. It seems to me therefore that it is reasonable to require a quota system where the whole objective of an institution is to secure integration. One therefore must take steps to ensure that that primary purpose is maintained and is not undermined.
I am sure that there will be people in the Province who will attempt, the minute that there is an extension of integrated schools, to stop that development and to seize on any loophole in the legislation to ensure that integration does not occur. As regards the rejection of a youngster because it upsets the balance within the school, that is against a principle that we all support, which is the right of a parent to choose the school his child attends. I would expect the Minister to say that the concept of balance cannot be accepted because it goes against the proper principle of parental choice. However, one must use one's common sense in this matter in the situation of Northern Ireland. Parental choice is important but integrated schools are also very important.
I understand that at the moment, of all the schools in Northern Ireland only 0·8 per cent. are integrated and of all the pupils in schools only 0·7 per cent. are in integrated schools. The interference with the rights of parents to decide where their children attend school when there is such a minute proportion of integrated schools seems in reality to be so slight that it should not be used to block not only the establishment but also the opportunity for development of integrated schools. If integrated schools already constituted 40 per cent. of the schools in Northern Ireland and a parent was told that he could not send his child to the school of his choice as it would seriously upset the balance of the school, I can see that in those circumstances there is a real argument that parental choice is being interfered with. But with such a tiny proportion of integrated schools, it surely could be permitted to build restrictions into the legislation so that the development of these schools cannot be sabotaged. I do not think that the Minister could stand up and say that there is no risk of sabotage of integrated schools. But for those of us who believe that in the longer run the real development on a substantial scale of integrated schooling is probably the best hope we have of long-term peace in the Province, that factor must be balanced against the other desirable and proper objectives. I believe we should come down on the side of doing all that we can on a statutory basis in legislation to make sure that integrated schools can increase in number from the minute proportion that they represent today to a proportion that will make a substantial contribution to the education of boys and girls in Northern Ireland.
6 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, in introducing this measure the Minister said that he regarded it as major legislation. I can certainly confirm that. From my experience in Northern Ireland I can say that this
1444
education order is the most important legislation in the education field since the 1947 Act in Northern Ireland. As we know, the 1947 Act followed on from the 1944 Butler Act which was passed here in Westminster. Arising from the introduction of that Act in 1947, some young people in Northern Ireland were able to go to university for the first time. After they had concluded their university education, they considered the conditions which then prevailed in Northern Ireland. It is generally recognised that the beginnings of the civil rights movement dated from that time. Those young people who had received a university education were not prepared to tolerate the conditions under which their parents had lived.
I think it will be understood in this House, given the sad, tragic history of the island of Ireland, and particularly in recent years of Northern Ireland, that people there hold two views on almost every subject under the sun. That is why education is so important. There are two views on the Battle of the Boyne. There are two views on what people here refer to as the glorious and bloodless revolution. It may have been glorious and bloodless in this country but it certainly was not in Ireland where we are living with its consequences. There are two views on the famine. It is only education and the correct teaching and interpretation of history that will go some way to alleviate all the myths and prejudices that prevail in that little island.
The Minister was also correct to say that the introduction of integrated schools is not a panacea for all the problems that beset Northern Ireland. Over many years on both sides of this House I have heard the argument put forward that integrated schools would in some way bring to an end the troubles in Northern Ireland. That is not so. It will help. It is a factor. It will allow young children to sit beside each other in schools and to learn to live with each other, but it will not stop people having deeply held political opinions on religion, on partition and on the whole political situation in Ireland. Those political opinions will remain paramount in the minds of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, irrespective of integrated schools. That is why it is so important for the Government, in taking a major step in their education policy, to get things right.
Sadly, I do not think they have got things right on this occasion. I do not say that because of anything that is contained in the Bill, as I agree with most of what is in it, particularly in the field of integrated education. I was one of the first to associate myself with Lagan College, with Hazlewood and with the other integrated colleges. As one who is still a Catholic, that was not a popular thing to do then or now. However, I believe that the time has now come in Northern Ireland to try to bring education further along the road of integration. There will be massive difficulties because most of the schools in Northern Ireland, particularly the primary schools, are situated in ghettos. All the Catholic schools are situated in West Belfast and most of the Protestant schools are situated in East Belfast or in some other part of the city. So a young boy or girl may, at the behest of his or her parents, have to traverse hostile territory from home to an integrated school in one or other of the ghettos. That will take a tremendous

1445
amount of courage on the part of the parents and on the part of the child.
If we are to move forward towards integration, schools may have to be built, at considerable cost to the public purse, in areas which are not classified as Republican, Unionist or Nationalist. Young children attending those schools will experience a great amount of distress, at least in the initial stages.
Why do I say that the Government have got it wrong? We have heard the Minister say that this legislation is the culmination of 18 months of discussions that have taken place with authorities and those concerned with education in the North. If it has taken 18 months of discussions with all the interested parties, why was it necessary to rush the legislation through the other place and this Chamber within 24 hours?
This legislation was dealt with in the Commons in the early hours of this morning and it has been rushed into this House within 24 hours. One would think that it was emergency legislation and dealing with life and limb. There have been occasions—such as in the case of the Prevention of Terrorism Act—when legislation has been pushed through because there was an emergency. In that case people were losing their lives. There has been emergency legislation in other fields. But there was no need to push this order through both Houses in one day so that it cannot be amended.
We have not yet had the privilege of reading the Hansard report of the debate which took place at the other end of the building. However, I understand that all the representatives from Northern Ireland voted against the order. Why did they vote against the order? Sixteen elected representatives from Northern Ireland were present when the order was debated. They expressed their point of view. Their time was limited and they did not have all the time that was necessary to voice either their support or their objections to various aspects of the order.
It may appear to people outside the building that they were 16 bigots from Northern Ireland, all with their own axe to grind—the Catholics wanting to keep Catholic schools and to stop integration, and the Protestants wanting to keep Protestant schools. That is not necessarily so. Those representatives at the other end of the building are anything but bigots. Some of them have vast experience in the field of education, having been schoolteachers before they were elected Members of Parliament. They expressed genuine concerns. I have spoken to some of them today and they have told me that they were not given answers. The order has come here and we shall not be given answers either. Some of those concerns have already been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I think that the Minister should take this opportunity, if the opportunity was not taken at the other end of the building, to answer some of the questions that have been raised.
There are eight integrated schools already in Northern Ireland. The two principal schools are Lagan College and Hazlewood College. They established criteria for themselves—the ratio would be 60:40. Given the circumstances in Northern Ireland I believe that that ratio is reasonable. Why
1446
not apply that ratio to all the other integrated schools which are supposed to come into being? Nothing is laid down in the order. It says that the school would be regarded as being integrationist if it was likely to attract reasonable numbers. Why not say 60:40, because the other schools have proved to be a success? If they have been a success with that ratio why not apply it to all the other proposed schools?
I understand that great concern was expressed about the question of the governors. Will any limits be placed on the authority of the governors to decide the integrationist culture attached to the school?
The order is not only about integrated schools, although that is the way in which it has been publicised in Northern Ireland. There are many other very laudable objects set out in the order. I should like to see it become a success. However, I believe that it should be given more time at both ends of the building so that elected representatives could express their concerns. If in the expression of those concerns it seemed that those representatives were unreasonable, that they expressed a bigoted point of view and that they were trying to protect their own interests, whether Catholic or Protestant, regarding those schools, that would be on record. Those who were in the House would be able to hear them. Now that there is television at the other end of the building people would be able to see whether or not their concerns were genuine. I believe that the Government have missed a glorious opportunity, because nobody will read about what happened at the other end of the building at half-past one this morning.
I say this to those who are opposed to integrated education that up to now we have not had integrated education to any great extent. Both Catholic and Protestant schools in Northern Ireland have produced a great many murderers—some are now serving their time in prison but some have not been caught. I believe that it is time that integrated education was given a chance. From that point of view I welcome the order.
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate. However, I believe that it is probably unique that there is an Ulster Catholic on that side of the House and an Ulster Protestant on this side of the House speaking in the same debate. I should like to say categorically that I agree with every word that the noble Lord has said. I endorse his sentiments and the manner in which he expressed them.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I should like to join my noble friend Lord Fitt in asking what is the hurry. There might be an emergency but in my recollection the emergency in Northern Ireland has existed since 1969, if not earlier if one considers the historical perspective. The immediate emergency has existed since 1969. I do not believe that this order is an element of that emergency which is of such urgency that it should be rushed through in this way, as my noble friend has said. Education is not a matter of urgency, it is a matter of time. We all know that.

1447
I should like to turn to the general proposition of integration. Clearly it is right that education in Northern Ireland should be integrated rather than segregated. If one opposes integration, one must be in favour of segregation, and that must be wrong.
I speak from my own personal experience. Although I am not a Northern Irishman, I am a South-West Scotsman which in many ways is not very different. Ayrshire, where I come from, is as near to Northern Ireland as a good many parts of Southern Ireland. We in Ayrshire have shared many of the prejudices of the Ulster Scots for many years.
As a youngster of five, six or seven years of age, I went to a school which was next door to the Catholic school. We were segregated by a wall—just like Berlin but it was not so high and one was not shot for trying to get over it. We Presbyterians were on one side of the wall and the Catholics were on the other. My Lords, what do you think we did at playtime? We stoned each other. I have a mark across the bridge of my nose which indicates that the marksmanship of the Catholics was more accurate than I should have liked. Why did we stone each other? We did it because we were segregated. We went home from that little school in Troon to the council estates where we lived next door to each other. We did not stone each other at home. We chased the girls—and sometimes the girls chased us. I fear to say that they did not always catch us. We stoned and abused each other while we were segregated. We did not do it when we were back at home a quarter of a mile way and living next door to each other like ordinary, honest, civilised beings.
Like my noble friend Lord Fitt, I know that the emotional imperatives are much more severe in Northern Ireland than they were in Ayrshire, but we should not forget that about 20 per cent. of the population in Ayrshire were Catholic. They were very well behaved, as indeed we were, but we regarded each other as different because we were segregated. That was part of the education system and was wholly wrong.
Finally, I wish to dissent a little from my noble friend on the Front Bench. I do not think that his honourable and emotionally decent espousal of the Irish language was wholly sensible. We do not want too many peripheral languages nowadays. As a Scotsman, I might say that I do not think we should encourage Gaelic. It is difficult to spell, quite apart from anything else. I do not think that we should espouse those languages. I recall that, when I was a civil engineer long ago and had dealings with power stations in Southern Ireland, the letter head of the Irish Electricity Board, or whatever it was called, was printed in both Irish and English. So the first page of the letter was so taken up by the letter head that there was only room on it for the words, "Dear Sir", or whatever the Irish is for "Dear Sir", and the letter began on the second page.
Those languages should not be discouraged as elements of a cultural identity, but, as part of the modern world, they should be set slightly to one side. I believe that, with the best of intentions, my noble friend has gone slightly overboard in defence
1448
of archaism and is making a mistake there. However, in general terms, the idea of integration is wholly to be supported and I hope that the House will support it.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, in general, I welcome the order, but I must immediately say that it should have been taken as a Bill. A long consultation period, as outlined by the Minister in reply to my Starred Question on 25th October and again today, is no substitute for full parliamentary procedure. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that 201 pages of legislation should not be disposed of in five or six hours of affirmative Motion debate. I raised that point again in the Home Affairs debate on 23rd November and suggested various possible remedies for the future.
I am surprised that the order refers throughout to the Department of Education and occasionally to the head of department, but never to the Minister. That seems constitutionally odd. If it is not possible to refer to the Minister, why does not the order empower the Secretary of State, as do most other Bills?
In welcoming the order, I should like to give special mention to Part VI dealing with integrated education. I am glad that Article 64 puts a duty on the Department of Education to develop and facilitate the integration of schools. I well remember visiting Lagan College when it began with a mere 28 children in a hall borrowed from the Scout movement. It has grown massively since then and is now on its own site with some 700 pupils. In October this year I visited the new integrated primary school in Enniskillen and, I am glad to say, found it bubbling with enthusiasm and initiative.
In the last eight years, 10 integrated schools have been established and more are planned. They represent a new phenomenon and have come about because that was what the parents wanted for their children. The parents came from both main religious traditions and have insisted that both traditions be strongly represented not only among the pupils, but also on the staff and governing bodies. There is thus no question of one side being in the majority. As has been mentioned, the ratios aimed at are within the range of 60:40 either way with allowance within those proportions for non-believers and members of non-Christian religions. If the ratio of pupils tilts in one direction, it will probably be counterbalanced by a different proportion within the staff or governors.
That seems to me to be the ideal situation. All traditions are respected and the main strands of Christian heritage are honoured and also studied, not only in religious education, but also in such subjects as history and geography. All the parents co-operate in parent-teacher associations, transport rotas, fund-raising and in many other ways. The life of the school is thus a learning experience for people of all ages.
Integrated education is not a form of social engineering, neither is it a panacea for all evils. However, I believe that it lays the foundations for a much happier and more harmonious future.

1449
I should have liked to see Her Majesty's Government holding up this model to all parents and to those responsible for the existing, largely segregated schools. Such a course would have provided real choice. I should have preferred a closely defined status for integration which would have asserted the principle of parity at all levels. That could have been combined with open enrolment for all other schools. Such moves, taken together with parents' ballots, could first have led existing schools to diversify their intakes and later to reach fully integrated status.
I accept that such an approach may contain its own difficulties and I welcome the safeguards contained in the order against token integration at a low level and against failure to ensure a properly integrated ethos which fully respects Protestantism, Catholicism and other traditions, where present. Nevertheless, I feel obliged to ask for a number of assurances once the order comes into force. Here I find myself going over some of the ground that has already been covered by Front Bench speakers, but I believe that it is no bad thing to reinforce those points, particularly speaking, as I do, from the Cross Benches.
Can the Minister say that future subordinate legislation, guidelines and schemes of management will not dilute the planned nature of integrated education? Will future admissions criteria allow the safeguarding of planned integration? Will the noble Lord confirm that open enrolment will not prejudice planned integration? Will the department and the boards secure balance among the governors of individual schools when making their appointments? Furthermore—and I do not think that this new point was touched on by anyone—will there be full protection for any staff not willing to teach within the new integrated framework? Can we be reassured that transitional periods—when a school changes from one status to another—will not be unduly prolonged?
Finally, will the Government consider producing a non-statutory guide to the development of integrated education? It would be comparable to the guide to employers produced by the Department of Economic Development in connection with the Fair Employment Act. Such a guide should be produced only after further close consultation with the interested parties.
I have mentioned the assurances that are necessary in order to dot the 'i' s and cross the 't' s on this very lengthy order that we are prevented from examining line by line. I look forward to a sympathetic reply.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, the Minister has rightly said that this is a very comprehensive order. I knew that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was going to speak on the subject of integrated education. However, I had not been expecting other noble Lords and the noble Baroness to cover it. Therefore much of what I would have said has already been stated.
First, I should like to give a general welcome to the provisions of the order which cover integrated education. I should like to thank the Minister for his
1450
generous remarks about the 1978 Education (Northern Ireland) Act. On that occasion we may not have won the battle but certainly the war was not lost. The results of educating all children together, which was started a few years before that, are now gradually coming to fruition. For those of us who have been involved from an early stage it is certainly a most gratifying development.
It has been stated more clearly than I can, that the definition of integrated education is important. That may be one area where the order falls short.
The matter of balances in schools was well covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Lagan College—to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred—has already been aiming for, and has achieved, a proportion of 50:50 or 40:60 pupils. If that could be achieved throughout the integrated schools it would be ideal. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to this point. It should be noted that despite the difficulties due to demographic patterns of achieving a balanced attendance—to which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred—a smattering of one tradition among a predominance of the other can be not only unproductive but perhaps counterproductive. I have heard of an instance where a Roman Catholic pupil went to a highly respected, well established school that has always taken pupils of both traditions, but has always had a predominance of Protestants. That young Roman Catholic pupil took the precaution when he went to the school of changing his name from Sean to John. The significance of that will not escape your Lordships. A balance is undoubtedly most important.
Integration does not come about only through educating Protestants and Roman Catholics in the one building. It has to be worked at. It has to evolve. The president of Lagan College said to me, "We could not call ourselves integrated. The proper word would be integrating. It is an ongoing process." All involved should realise that it does not happen overnight.
Having said that, it is most gratifying to see the progress that has been made. I sometimes wish that this progress were more greatly appreciated on this side of the water. I read a press report the other day about an integrated school having been opened in the region of Chelmsford in Essex. A prominent and right reverend person speaking on that occasion said that he felt that this was an example that ought to be followed throughout the country. He then added, "Perhaps in due course even in Northern Ireland.". I wish that that speaker had realised that Lagan College has been established since 1981, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has said, has built up from 28 pupils to nearly 600 with a waiting list.
There are now eight or nine integrated schools running in Northern Ireland. One or two more are in the course of being established. That is the progress that we have been making and are continuing to make. I hope that noble Lords will not be slow to propagate the constructive and progressive action that is happening in Northern Ireland. It is something of which we can genuinely be proud. I thank the noble Lord for his introduction of the order.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, it gives me no pleasure to detain the House further on this order. However, I would ask those noble Lords who are waiting for the next debate to have patience and tolerance for those people who are interested in the Northern Ireland situation and who have no other opportunity to air those views. It has already been said that it is not an order in the normal sense of the word. It is a fairly massively sized Bill. It is being rushed, steamrollered, through both Houses of Parliaments. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has said, it went through the other place at half past one in the morning and here it has been sandwiched between other very important subjects in which a number of people are extremely interested. It is not a very satisfying procedure. It gives me no great pleasure to know that I shall incur even further the wrath of my noble friend Lord Houghton who has been patiently waiting all day long to speak on his Bill.
Having said that, I am grateful that most of the previous speakers have said much of what I would have said had I spoken earlier. Perhaps I may curtail my remarks.
I come straight to the point. I, too, am interested in integrated education. Those of us who have listened to some of the speeches may have gained the impression that if one were not interested in integrated education then one was interested in segregation—one supported segregation. Another noble Lord has said that integration is the answer. Nobody would disagree. However, to ask, "Do you agree with integrated education?" is almost like asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
There are other propositions. There are reservations. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, would agree that there are those on both sides of the divide in the six counties who would disagree with them and for very good reasons. I lean very heavily on the submissions of the Catholic bishops who have expressed concern about the move towards integrated education for a number of practical reasons. I hope that it will not mean that those who are 100 per cent. in favour and those on the so-called sideline will not now run for their book of labels to pin labels on those who are taking the opposing view. I hope that they will listen to the submissions made by bishops of the Catholic community.
Most of us who have been involved with the problems in Northern Ireland for many years have discussed on numerous occasions the question of integrated education. It has been a subject for discussion for 50 years to my knowledge, and perhaps longer. It has been a very popular and very attractive concept that if one could only reconcile the two communities at that level, then one would be on the way. We all want reconciliation between the two communities, the two parts of the island, and the English situation.
However, one cannot approach every problem in Ireland and think that it can be cured by an English approach. That does not work because other situations exist in Northern Ireland which are not envisaged. The bishops have expressed those reservations most adequately. I assume that the
1452
Minister has read their submission so I shall not quote from it at length. But with reservations, it is an acceptable proposition to everyone.
The biggest reservation is that there is no definition of integrated education. Is it intended merely to get together Catholics and Protestants in the same school? It has been said that integration has not yet been achieved at Lurgan. However, they are moving towards that. It is not merely a question of putting the two sides together and saying, "You are integrated, now get on with it". Neither can one impose such a situation on all the schools.
I do not suppose that we can compare the situation with that which exists here. However, were we to do so it would be interesting to note that in my old constituency in London there are Catholic schools, Anglican schools, a Greek school, a Jewish school, single-sex schools, a Japanese school, an American school, and grant-aided, voluntary and state schools. They all exist together within the one community but there are demands for even more. For example, for a number of reasons there is a demand for separate schools for black people. Therefore, the move is not towards integration here. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, it would appear that here there is a move towards more segregation. Taking his point to its logical conclusion, people here are demanding more segregation within the system—
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for allowing me to intervene. I am sympathetic towards much of what he has said. However, one of my major points was that because we were segregated we threw stones at each other. I do not believe that that is a good idea.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's explanation. I remind him that I also have long experience of that part of Scotland and therefore his comments are not strange to me. However, I am trying to compare the two situations.
I understand that there are Moslem children in Northern Ireland who are sent here to special Moslem schools. It is not a matter simply of saying, "You and you get together. You are integrated so now get on with it. We will fund you, but if you do not do this you will not receive any funds". Other problems exist which can be overcome. However, we are saying that while we are moving in that direction other issues should be examined.
We know that tremendous steps are being taken by teachers on both Catholic and Protestant sides. In existing schools teachers have made great progress in their efforts to reconcile children within the school, reconcile the system and introduce new teaching material. In my view, that should be funded as an essential step on the way. It is not merely a question of integration or segregation. There is a point in between before we reach the ultimate; there is the area in which we could encourage the reconciliatory moves which the teachers have started. We could ensure that they are essentially funded enabling them to carry on with their work. Then perhaps the result will evolve. As has been said, it is a process of evolution.

1453
The present practical problems are serious. It is not merely an academic matter because there are major implications. The proposals in the order will have major implications for the education budget. The school which becomes integrated will be funded. The school property and so forth will go with it upon integration and more problems will arise. Integration will be carried out by a minority of the parents of existing pupils at the schools. We had the opting-out argument in respect of the English and Welsh legislation. It involves a simple majority not of those who represent all the children at the school but of those who happen to vote in the ballot. A simple majority can take the school out of the Catholic community and into the general community.
In that respect we should recognise another difference which also exists in this country; namely, that in the main Catholics substantially contribute towards and subsidise their education facilities. Many Catholics do not have children at the local school but they pay towards the upkeep of the building and everything that goes with that. It will be said, "If we manage to get a majority of the parents who are there as of now we can take the whole lot out, although others may have paid nothing towards it". The schools have been bought by a Catholic community, more so in Northern Ireland than in London, and is it right, fair and just to lift them out? I assure noble Lords that it will not be seen as justice in some parts of the Catholic community. That should be obvious in the present circumstances.
If a school is taken out, those not in favour of the change will then want to set up an alternative; that is, another Catholic school. They will have to look for a site and for funding but they will come across this kind of opposition. We are setting up such a situation by going down this road. Before doing so there are other roads to go down and we need not rush in headlong to antagonise a large population in such a way.
The bishops welcomed many aspects of the order, including the curriculum, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. They also agreed with parents' choice. But if that means a minority of the parents now involved—it is a transient population—it raises an immediate and practical problem. In a letter to me the bishops stated that they wondered why, for instance, in the Education Reform Act 1988 for England and Wales, Section 89(2) states:
"No proposals shall be published under this section for the purpose of making a significant change in the religious character of such a school unless the trustees of the school (if any) have given their consent in writing to the change in question".
Even that provision is not contained in the order. The existence of the trustees is totally ignored although they are equally important, if not more so, in the Northern Ireland situation. Of course the order makes a significant change. Who would argue that to try to integrate in the way I have described is not a significant change in Northern Ireland? Of course it is, so why have we not applied Section 89(2) of the 1988 England and Wales Act in the same way, thereby giving the trustees a say in the matter? In winding up will the Minister take that point on board?
1454
There is a great deal more to be said but I shall now wind up my speech because we shall have further opportunities to debate the matter—
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down will he respond to the following notion. He and I were brought up in the south-west of Scotland where there is a noticeable problem, although less severe than in Northern Ireland. We were part of a segregated education system until the age of 18. We then went to university where we were not segregated and that did not do us the slightest bit of harm. Therefore, what is the difference? Why would it have mattered if we had been unsegregated before we went to university?
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord answered his own question when he said that he agreed that the situation in Scotland was not as bad as that in Northern Ireland. There, there is a different set of circumstances and a different situation. There were instances of non-segregation at primary school level in Scotland. Some children received religious education apart from their lessons in the integrated situation. However, the situation in Northern Ireland is not the same as it was in the West of Scotland. It is much more difficult and complicated. Therefore, the problems are more complex.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to take a few moments to reiterate many of the points which have been made. My thoughts on integrated education were beautifully expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. Indeed, as he pointed out, as long ago as 1978 he and his colleagues set up the framework for much of this particular stratum of legislation in the order this evening.
Throughout the thread of our discussion, we have consistently referred to integration in the schools. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, and the Minister would agree that that is a matter for the schools themselves. I believe that the definitions, such as they are, in this order meet the needs of the situation, not just overall in Northern Ireland but in each individual school which might want to take to the integrated path. Northern Ireland is unique and the system of education which we are discussing is unique. It needs to be taken in the Northern Irish context, and in spite of the constraints put upon us by the legislative procedure this evening, I believe that the order brings the benefits which we want for Northern Ireland and, as my noble friend pointed out, this order will carry us on into the next century.
The second matter which I am fascinated by in the order—and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, drew our attention to this—is on page 166 at Schedule 2 where there is reference to the Irish language. Schedule 2, col. 4 is entitled:
"Compulsory contributory subjects in key stage 4".
Perhaps my noble friend will indicate whether this is a compulsory contributory subject for Ministers since I am deficient in everything but two words of Irish although I am trying to make some efforts in

1455
French, German and Italian. However, if one looks at the compulsory contributory subjects in Northern Ireland, then that shows that the standard of education in Northern Ireland covered by the order this evening is unique and praiseworthy.
I also ask my noble friend to write to me on the reason for physical education being classified as "creative and expressive studies", since my physical education was neither of those. He might help me on that matter.
Thirdly, can my noble friend at a later stage give me—and your Lordships—the comparable figures between Great Britain and Northern Ireland? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to the fact that 25 per cent. of school leavers aged 19 leave the two traditional schools in Northern Ireland without qualifications. Can the Minister at some stage let me know what are the comparable figures for Great Britain—that is, England, Scotland and Wales? With that, I wholeheartedly support the order and wish it well.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I should like to make one very brief point which is additional to those which have been so very ably put forward this evening, and I promise to be brief. We have been reminded that integrated education in Northern Ireland is a delicate and fragile matter. I welcome the sympathy which the Government and the Minister have shown towards this subject, and for making available additional resources in Northern Ireland for that purpose. They are not enough and we should ask for more; but they have certainly made available some additional resources.
Yet, as the Minister knows, there are still grave worries on the part of the Northern Ireland council and the Belfast Charitable Trust about the proposals within this order. I do not wish to become involved in the argument as to whether they are right or wrong because we cannot amend them and time alone will tell whether or not they are right.
In those circumstances, it seems to me that the request made by the Northern Ireland council is eminently reasonable, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to it. I refer to the request by the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education that a working party should be established to monitor the effects of open enrolment on integrated schools, and that the Minister should be willing to give an undertaking that he will introduce amending legislation if there is found to be, in practice, a detrimental effect on planned integrated schools. I am sure the Minister shares in the intention underlying this matter. I very much welcome the consultation which has taken place and his assurance that that will continue. Will he go that inch further and assure the bodies concerned with integrated education in Northern Ireland that he will enter into a consultative arrangement of that sort with them for the future?
7 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken for their
1456
contribution to this important debate. First, I took very much to heart the words of the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hylton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about consultation (which I repeat has been both genuine and extensive) being no substitute for using the Bill procedure for a composite order, as is the one before us. This is not the first time that that problem has been aired in this House.
However, I can only repeat that we all know where the answer really lies. What we are carrying out here in this Parliament in Westminster is an interim project to maintain the statute book for Northern Ireland where it rightly belongs. In order to do that, given the constraints of parliamentary time—and I should say to an extent parliamentary interest—it is necessary to use this rather unconventional legislative method of Order in Council which for Northern Ireland has the distinction of being primary legislation.
My right honourable friend to whom I have put the problem has said on many occasions that he is ready and willing at any time to talk to those people most directly concerned in this—namely, the Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland—about their concerns on the procedures for handling legislation and to consider any constructive proposals. That offer has not yet been taken up but perhaps those of your Lordships who have voiced concern will now encourage them, wherever able to do so, to take up that offer because I repeat that there is a problem. We do not as yet have an agreed solution, which we should love to have.
I now turn to the order itself. It would seem from the speeches which I have heard this evening that in the minds of some noble Lords there seems to remain some doubt, to put it mildly, about aspects of the integrated education provisions of the order. As I supposed in my opening speech, we all agree that integrated education, in the words of 1066 and All That is a good thing. It is right that these provisions should receive our special attention because I believe that they will have a significant influence on how Northern Ireland shapes its future. Therefore, I shall deal first with those provisions and in the course of my remarks I shall seek to address the main concerns which noble Lords have raised.
First, there is the central question of whether the legislation should seek to restrict integrated status to schools which have achieved a balance between Protestant and Catholic pupils in their enrolments. The Government understand and fully accept that enrolments balanced in that way offer ideal opportunities for encouraging equal respect and esteem for both traditions—a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, clearly holds dear. I can assure noble Lords that we shall expect schools seeking integrated status to strive to achieve a balance where it is feasible to do so within the framework of constitutional constraints. However, it is quite a different proposition to seek to legislate for a balanced enrolment, which is what the noble Lord and, if I may be allowed to call him this, his surprise supporter the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford would ask us to do. What though in my turn I would ask them is: What about those

1457
geographical areas in the Province where there is not the average 60:40 split; for example, west of Strabane? Are they to be deprived of the opportunity, if they so want it, of integrated education? I believe not. Nonetheless, I wish to stress the central considerations for government in this area.
The first is that the new legislation must not undermine the guarantee provided by existing education law that every grant aided school in Northern Ireland shall be open to pupils of all religious denominations. In particular we have sought to avoid provisions in law which could in effect require schools to engage in discriminatory admissions practices. Those practices in Northern Ireland, as anywhere else in the United Kingdom, would of course be illegal.
Secondly, there are wider considerations of policy to be taken into account. I am sure that your Lordships in supporting integrated education would share the Government's fundamental objective that the aspirations of as many parents as possible for integrated schools for their children should be met. That is the whole object of the exercise. The reality which must be faced in Northern Ireland is that there are very few schools indeed which could hope to achieve and maintain balanced enrolments, and I fear that to introduce such a restrictive statutory requirement would deny the vast majority of schools any real prospect of integrated status.
It is with these main considerations in mind that we have chosen to express the enrolment in the much more flexible term of reasonable numbers. But such flexibility, as has been alleged in certain quarters, does not connote imprecision or weakness. The future of integrated education and its standing and credibility in the community will not be helped by allowing a dilution of the character of integrated schools.
In approving applications for integrated status the Department of Education will apply strict criteria about the management, ethos and control of the school and will wish to be assured that it has a real prospect of being attended by reasonable numbers of children from both communities. I reiterate the categorical assurance that every decision about the acquisition of integrated status by a school will be taken most carefully, with the broader interests of the successful development of integrated education to the fore.
Of course I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that it is an essential feature of Government's policy that every child should be enabled to benefit from education up to the limits of his or her potential. In so far as there is evidence of particular limitations in provision for any class of school—any sector or any area—that must always be a matter for concern. Indeed it was in part a concern of this nature that led the department, in consultation with the Roman Catholic Church, to make provision for the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools which I remarked on earlier. But for the future the provisions of this order should themselves provide the best possible guarantee of equality of opportunity for all children in all schools.
The order lays on all concerned a positive duty to provide a broad and balanced curriculum
1458
throughout all the years of compulsory education. That curriculum is carefully defined and its provision in every school can be carefully monitored. Thus any deficiencies in any school or class of school should be readily identifiable and will have to be remedied. It is important that the formulation of schemes for the funding of schools, and the delegation of financial decisions to boards of governors, take account of the particular needs of individual schools. The House will be aware of the problems facing many schools in areas of major social deprivation. This must be reflected in the support provided, and it will be.
The claim has been made that the prospect of 100 per cent. capital funding for integrated schools—a matter not exactly referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, but it was certainly in the background paper on which he based many of his remarks—will discriminate against Catholic schools because they receive only 85 per cent. capital grants. However, these allegations, I believe, miss the central point that Catholic schools are voluntary schools. As with other types of voluntary school—and this includes Protestant schools—their trustees enjoy the right to appoint an overall majority of the school's governors. The 85 per cent. capital grant rate, which is the same as that payable to voluntary aided schools in England and Wales, recognises the degree of control which trustees retain in the governance of their schools.
In contrast, integrated schools will not be voluntary schools. They will either be controlled integrated schools managed by the education and library boards or grant-maintained integrated schools set up and managed as corporate bodies in their own right. Neither form of integrated school will have an overall majority for any one interest on its board of governors. I reiterate the Government's assurance that they will consider at any time representations that changes should be made to the constitution of boards of governors and the existing grant rate for Catholic schools.
I was interested in the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, of a guide to integrated education and also in the suggestion of another noble Lord—it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, himself—of future discussions with interested parties as we come to introduce this order. I shall put both those points to my honourable friend in another place. I myself think that it is absolutely axiomatic that further discussions will be required as this order is brought into effect.
The House will also have noticed that the balloting procedures themselves are based on the same principles as the corresponding provision of the Education Reform Act. These include provision for a second ballot to be held if fewer than half the parents who are eligible to vote participate in the first ballot.
The House will further note that provision also appears on the draft order requiring that, in the event of a voluntary school becoming integrated, the Department of Education will consult with the trustees about the possible transfer of property. Again, I give the assurance that if there are good reasons why a property should not transfer, the

1459
department will exercise its statutory power to direct that the trustees should continue to hold it.
Specific representations have also been made that the schemes of management for integrated schools and their admissions criteria should be able to include provisions designed to safeguard the integrated nature of these schools. On these points I can tell your Lordships that the Department of Education will indeed be prepared to consider for approval reasonable provisions proposed for inclusion in the scheme of management of an integrated school which are designed to help secure the ethos of the school so long—and this is an important point—as these are consistent with other provisions of the law.
As for admissions criteria, I can confirm that it will be a matter for the governors of each school to draw up the criteria to be applied in selecting pupils for admission to a school, subject again to the necessary proviso that they should not be unlawful. Let me re-emphasise that the Government believe parents should have the right to choose. It would be wrong for the Government to impose integration which would deny other parents their choice. Equally it would be wrong if the Government failed to secure equality of access to integrated education, alongside the options already available for other types of school. The Government are satisfied that this has been achieved in the present order.
Strategic plans for further education are of course a very important point. The order requires, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will have realised, that education and library boards draw up strategic plans for further education in their areas, but these plans will not be subject to approval by the Department of Education. Boards have a statutory responsibility for securing adequate facilities for further education for their areas, and we are content that they are in the best position to plan such provision, taking account of the particular needs of their areas. I know that my honourable friend the Under-Secretary will continue to fight for money for the Department of Education, as he has so successfully done in, I think, the last four years of his appointment.
So far as nursery education is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and others will wish to know that, despite a smaller number of nursery places in Northern Ireland, the overall number of three and four year-olds getting an early start to their education is on a par with England and Wales, which I understand is around 45 per cent. of children of that age. Moreover, the importance that the Government attach to nursery education is seen in the recent release of three new nursery school building projects in Belfast. It will also be important that children in this group receive an education appropriate to their needs and maturity, and do not embark prematurely on formal programmes of study. The Department of Education will be offering advice to schools on the provision to be made. However, the Government have no intention at this time to bring forward legislation relating to nursery education.
Irish speaking has figured in this debate, and it is right that it should. The definition in the draft
1460
order provides the necessary flexibility to cover the situation where, for example, pupils enrolling for the first time at an Irish medium school may initially have insufficient knowledge of the Irish language to enable all instruction to be conducted through that medium. The earlier reference to part of a school therefore covers the situation where only some pupils of a school are taught in the medium of Irish. An example of this is the Irish-speaking unit at Steelstown Primary School in Londonderry. In-service training for teachers of Irish will certainly be provided where the need is established. I note and welcome also the noble Lord's support for education for mutual understanding. I too am confident that all teachers will indeed rise to this important challenge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is quite right, I would suggest, in saying that all the contributory subjects are not compulsory. She is also right that the areas of study concept, if I may call them that, give an element of added flexibility to the curriculum, especially in the last two years of secondary school; that is, pupils in the fourth and fifth forms.
So far as physical education creating a whole person is concerned, I can tell the House that my noble friend Lord Lyell—who I can now reveal to the House is a fitness addict, to say the least—has come to no harm in his skiing activities for your Lordships' House as a result of physical education, I am sure, at school.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, may I just say to my noble friend that I am no stranger to the orthopaedic ward. All four limbs have been repaired during my career in your Lordships' skiing team.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful for my noble friend's clarification on this matter. Be that as it may, I have noted that it has not stopped him from skiing.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, spoke eloquently about the need for much greater understanding and appreciation of elements of the common history of Ireland. However, I think we can take that point as read, as the noble Lord is not here.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked, among many other things, about staff so far as newly integrated schools are concerned.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, if the noble Lord would give way for a second, may I say that it was the staff of existing schools that I am more concerned with.
Lord Skelmersdale: I understood from the noble Lord's remarks that it was staff at schools which changed their status, and therefore that for one reason or another they may not fit into the new regime. It was that point that I was intending to answer. I can assure the noble Lord that the legislation recognises that staff employed by education and library boards or the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools who are unwilling to transfer may indeed be redeployed. The legislation does not rule out entitlement to compensation in other cases, although, like I am sure the noble Lord, I would hope that this is kept to the absolute minimum

1461
because I believe that teachers are a valuable commodity, as I said earlier. Therefore, it should be possible to redeploy them on most occasions.
I do not think that it would be terribly helpful to go back to what I was saying about the comparisons between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in terms of school-leavers. But what I shall do is to consider the point further and, if I may, write to my noble friend Lord Lyell.
I believe that this has been an extremely good debate. It has brought out, and I hope that I have answered, most of the concerns that have been evidenced in recent weeks in Northern Ireland. I referred at the beginning of the debate to the relative strength of the education service in Northern Ireland. Our aim is to preserve all that is best in that service and to build on it for the benefit of all. This order will ensure equality of access for all pupils to a curriculum containing what I know your Lordships will agree are the essentials of a proper, rounded education.
In that connection I am sure than my honourable friend will be absolutely thrilled by the comfort that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, gave to him in commending a rather different form of curriculum from that which is about to pertain in Great Britain. An education is for the whole of life—this is a point that came out strongly from several noble Lords' speeches. It is an education which in its structures needs to be responsive not only to the need of pupils but to the wishes of parents and which will play its part in fostering community cohesion and peace in Northern Ireland. That is something devoutly to be wished. If this order does nothing else—and I think that it will do a great deal else—I hope that it will be a small step in that desirable direction. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Abortion (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.16 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In view of the time at which we begin this possibly somewhat lengthy debate, I must keep my own speech strictly within practical limits. I hope however that I may be permitted one personal recollection. It is 37 years since I sponsored the first abortion law reform Bill in the House of Commons. I have lived through it all. On that occasion, although the ill luck of the ballot brought us abysmally low on the list of preference, three Catholic Members of Parliament put down the same Motion to that Bill as the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, has put down to this one. However, we had two minutes—two minutes!—and that was the end of that. It took 15 years of balloting in this absurd Private Member's Bill procedure in the Commons to get further debates on abortion.
There is nothing new in this Bill. It is the same Bill that I introduced last May, soon after the report of the Select Committee of this House on this subject. My Bill then—and my Bill now—was designed to
1462
implement the unanimous recommendations of your Lordships' own Select Committee, composed of all parties under the skilful and wise chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. It was a unanimous report. Fancy, my Lords, an all-party Select Committee of this House reached a unanimous report. Its unanimous recommendations are in this Bill tonight. No more, and no less.
We debated that report on the 25th March last year. A number of noble Lords who are down to speak tonight spoke then. Ten noble Lords on the list to speak tonight also spoke on the 25th March 1988. Therefore, some speeches will probably be predictable, my own included. This always makes for dullness of debate, because we know exactly what people are going to say. But we have to go on saying it, because our absurd rules of procedure often bring debates to a futile conclusion, and we have to begin all over again each time.
It is customary to treat a report of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House with due respect, because it represents the combined wisdom of different viewpoints in the House brought together in the hope of arriving at a consensus.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord—
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: No, my Lord, I shall not give way. This inquiry had taken well over a year to reach conclusions so that well over a year's hard work and debate and taking of evidence lies behind the Bill that the House is discussing tonight. Noble Lords should hesitate before casting it into outer darkness.
What is wrong with it? Is it the content of the Bill or its timing? I think we should examine these matters for a moment. The content of the Bill can be briefly summarised by saying that we recommended that up to the end of the 24th week the existing conditions and criteria in the 1967 Act should continue to apply, while after the 24th week stiffer conditions and sterner tests should be applied. Whatever limits are fixed there have to be exceptions. There are bound to be exceptions and we must try to define what they should be and how they should be applied.
Under this Bill the tests for abortions after the end of the 24th week would be stiffer than they are at the present time. There was a time during the debate on 25th March 1988 when the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, suggested that something like 24 weeks might be the basis for a consensus and that if the Government were to introduce a Bill with provision for a gestational limit of about 24 weeks, it might go through both Houses of Parliament. That is what we have been searching for all these years; to try to get some kind of consenus upon which both Houses could unite to bring forward a law which would be generally accepted throughout the land.
Very recently an important document has come into our hands published in the Lancet of 2nd December. There we get an up-to-date account of the opinion of the gynaecologists who are handling abortion cases all the time. This report is open to

1463
us all and I believe that copies have been widely circulated. Incidentally, the result of the survey was that, on the whole, the existing Act was believed to be working satisfactorily. Seventy-six per cent. of the consultants thought that the existing law was working satisfactorily on the whole and only 23 per cent. took a different view.
As regards the time limits, a sample opinion on several questions was taken of about 300 consultants. One of them dealt with 24 weeks and other gestational limits. Behind the 24 weeks, with exceptions, were 75 per cent. of the consultants. Only 3 per cent. were in favour of 18 weeks, which was the gestational limit included in the Alton Bill and which was largely canvassed as a basis upon which the abortion law could be changed. Eighty-seven per cent. of the gynaecologists thought that their royal college was right to oppose the Alton Bill last year.
Limits even higher than 18 weeks were still opposed and are today. Only 13 per cent. favoured changing the legal limit to between 20 and 23 weeks. Only 4 per cent. favoured going below 19 weeks. A period of 24 weeks was strongly supported by 64 per cent. of those who were consulted. Incidentally, when the consultants were asked whether they favoured the women's campaign for the right to choose, there were some quite astonishing results. Seventy-three per cent. of the gynaecologists said that women should be allowed, after consulting their doctor, to choose whether to have an abortion; 21 per cent. said that they should not.
The general public census taken in 1987 showed that, of men, 73 per cent. thought that women should have the right to choose and, of women, 84 per cent. thought that they should have that right. Those who said that they should not have the right to choose were 13 per cent. of the men polled and 8 per cent. of the women.
In the face of the opinion of the consultants who are daily dealing with this grievous problem of abortion, it ill becomes us to set ourselves up as better judges of what is right and proper and to think of gestational limits which are far below what the profession believes are appropriate. The general practitioners have said 24 weeks. The Government have said that they are behind the period of 24 weeks. Perhaps we shall hear from the noble Baroness whether that is still their position, because it was certainly so concerning the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill 1986. I do not see how we can possibly differ from the unanimous conclusions of our own Select Committee on this question.
If it is not a question of content, is the problem the timing? In view of the misrepresentation which is rife in the press, especially the Catholic press, I must make it absolutely plain that this Bill does not intend to block anything, stop anything or interfere with anybody. The Bill has its own merits and it derives directly from the Select Committee's report. It is entitled to a place in the debates in this House quite apart from anything else that may be happening, unless the two issues are likely to clash. Even then, there is nothing in the rules of your
1464
Lordships' House to prevent a Private Member's Bill making progress alongside another Bill which may be dealing with a similar question.
I have read some extracts from the press this morning. I read in the Guardian:
"Mr. Keith Davies, campaign co-ordinator of the Life, the national pro-Life organisation, yesterday described Lord Houghton's bill as the most monstrous proposal that has been put before Parliament since the Abortion Act itself. It was tabled to prevent a pro-Life amendment being added to the Government's embryo bill, he said".
That is absolutely shocking. I look at another press cutting; namely, the Scotsman, which states:
"Labour peer may block abortion bill".
I have another which begins:
"Peer's Bill could torpedo abortion debate",
and another:
"Peer's Bill threatens abortion amendments".
This Bill does nothing of the sort. I gave notice to introduce my Bill before the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill appeared in the Queen's Speech. I wrote to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, the day before the Queen's Speech telling him of my intention to introduce the Bill and then to see how matters went before asking for a Second Reading or progress to be made on the Bill. Neither of us knew at that moment—at least I assume that neither of us knew; I did not—that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill would be included in the Queen's Speech, though everyone thought so.
I had written to the Leader of the House asking him whether it was likely that the rumours gaining ground in the country were true that the Bill to be dealt with first in the House of Lords would have a Long Title wide enough to provide for amendments to the Abortion Act 1967. I received no reply from him. One cannot say something about these matters until the Queen has spoken, although we know that all kinds of things go on behind the scenes, whether or not the Queen has spoken. No one spoke to me and I can scarcely complain about it.
I suggested to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, in a kindly and friendly way, that I hoped that he would not lend himself and his reputation to the maneouvre of trying to hijack the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill on behalf of abortion. But he did not reply to that letter either. It is difficult to be reasonable when dealing with some people who have a different viewpoint from one's own. I try to be honest, straight and open, but not when dealing with some people on abortion. One cannot find out anything. There is a blanket of silence.
In my speech on the loyal Address I asked the noble Duke to come out and say what his plans were. I said the same thing at the Second Reading of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. The noble Duke kept his seat and said not a word about what he intended to do. He knew that my Bill was down to have its Second Reading, and so the day before this debate a Motion was tabled to delay the Second Reading for six months.
What are we to gain by setting this Bill aside? We are all enmeshed in the rusty framework of our parliamentary procedures on Private Members'

1465
Bills. It has been a disgrace and a scandal for the whole of the 21-year history of abortion. Governments refuse to touch some matters. They say that they are suitable for the initiatives of Private Members. But when Private Members launch initiatives they cannot, because of the facilities for obstructing and delaying Private Members' Bills get the time to see their work completed. Private Members have no Whips and they cannot enforce closure. They are at the mercy of obstruction. Everyone has suffered from it. But it still goes on.
I would quite understand if the noble Duke were saying that this Bill is a small moonbeam in the larger lunacy of our legislative practices and rules. I would agree with him. The Labour Government of 1966 were the first and only government to give time to the subject of abortion in order to allow David Steel's Bill to become law. No government since have done it. The rules are rigid and unvariable. So we have a device—I call it a contrivance—born of connivance to use the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill as a vehicle for getting abortion amendments into a Government Bill. Those amendments will ride on the back of that Bill into the House of Commons and by that subterfuge abortion law may be changed where the Government refuse to adopt any alternative method of achieving it. That is disgraceful.
The Government must care so little for the business of this House and for the harmony of our proceedings that they seem to be willing to facilitate this use of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill for abortion amendments. In those circumstances I can quite understand the noble Duke, The Duke of Norfolk, thinking, "Why bother with Houghton's Bill? He will not get any time in the House of Commons. We shall be backing a loser. It will be stopped at the boundaries. But if we can get inside the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, we shall be well away. That horse will run. It will jump over the boundaries. It will have to have government time, and that is how we can achieve our purpose". But we shall still be here when that Bill comes from the House of Commons after being impregnated possibly with revolutionary changes. I shall not say what we may have to do with it when it comes here, but it is certainly something that we shall have to consider.
I hope that the present Bill can make progress. Your Lordships cannot turn down for purely strategic and procedural advantage—if there is any; I do not believe that there is—the recommendations of your Select Committee. Let this Bill go forward. Let it make progress. If there is anything in it that we do not like, it can be amended. At least we shall then get our debates on abortion in a separate channel and not disrupt and disharmonise all the proceedings on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months").
7.36 p.m.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, this Bill amends the Abortion Act 1967 and appears to reduce the time limit for abortion to 24 weeks from the present 28 weeks. That is a total delusion. Clause 1(2A)(a) specifies that if two medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination of the pregnancy is essential to prevent serious damage to the mental or physical health of the pregnant woman, an abortion may be carried out at any time up to the full term of the pregnancy; that is to say, an abortion can take place up to birth. This is reinforced by the provision in Clause 2 that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 will not apply to abortions under this Bill. It will be recalled that the Act made it a crime to kill a child capable of being born alive; and the continuation of pregnancy for 28 weeks was a prima facie proof that the child was capable of being born alive.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to the Brightman Committee. I attended its meetings once or twice in the Moses Room. The committee was not representative of this House. Many of its members were pro-abortion. They are good people and I do not say a word of criticism about them. But the committee did not contain anyone on my side of the argument. That is a fact. For the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, to claim that the Brightman Committee was representative of the considered opinions of the House is rubbish.
We need amendments to the Abortion Act 1967. But this Bill goes in the wrong direction and so is not worth treating as a basis that could itself be amended. The Bill is a calamity. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months").—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Gran tchester): My Lords, the original Question was that this Bill be now read a second time, since when an amendment has been moved,
To leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months").
Therefore the Question I now have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I very much hope that the House will not accept the amendment moved by the noble Duke. We have been discussing the question of abortion and revision of the abortion legislation for a very long time. Moreover, last year with the Alton Bill a great deal of parliamentary time was given to the issue and a great deal of discussion took place on the matter throughout the country.
I can accept that perhaps this Bill as presented by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton is not the absolute, ideal Bill with every word as one would wish. However, the main substance of the Bill is the proposal for a reduction in the period of time permissible before an abortion takes place to 24

1467
weeks. I see that the noble Duke is shaking his head, but I shall return to the matter later.
Speaking as someone who very much supported both the David Steel Bill and the determination expressed last year to defeat the Alton Bill, I must say that of course I do not like abortion any more than the noble Duke. Indeed, in a perfect world there would be no abortion. It is something we would wish to avoid wherever we can. But it has always been plain to me that the alternative of no abortion is totally unacceptable. Any of us who have had experience in such matters—and I suppose many noble Baronesses in this House have had personal contact with people who have been faced with these problems—will know how hideous are the alternatives. We say that we do not wish to go back to the days of knitting needles, and I shall not progress along those lines. However, I want to make the point that we are not defending the idea that abortion is a desirable practice; we are saying that it is the lesser of two evils. I submit that in most moral questions the choice is all too often that of the lesser of two evils. When you are certain which the lesser is, I contend that the moral obligation is to back that decision even though you know that it is very far from the perfect solution.
We have argued this issue for far too long. The evidence now is that it is sensible to reduce the period to 24 weeks. The medical profession tells us quite plainly that it is desirable to recognise the fact that changes in medical practice make 24 weeks far more suitable than 28 weeks. Therefore, those of us who regretfully support the need to have legal abortion back the idea of 24 weeks. It is highly desirable that we should clear up this issue of what is legal in terms of abortion and what is the right period of time to take into consideration.
The noble Duke said that the other provisions in the Bill give permission for abortion over a much longer period. I understand that these are the recommendations of the Brightman Committee. However, as the noble and learned Lord is to speak in the debate I am sure that he will either confirm or qualify that statement. If there are inadequacies in the other clauses, we shall have the chance to amend them in Committee. Moreover, when we have heard today's debate we shall know whether it is necessary to do so.
The central feature of the Bill is the reduction of the period to 24 weeks. Surely the desirable aim now is to obtain this adjustment about which we have been talking for so long. If we do not do so now, the issue will arise again and again; it will not go away. We have a reasonable proposition here, overwhelmingly supported by the best medical evidence that can be produced. I do not think that there is so much difference between us on the moral issue. However, on the physical issue it is clear that 24 weeks is strongly backed. Surely it is a reasonable compromise in the present circumstances. However, it may well be that the situation will change in the future.
Of course it would be desirable to have a government Bill. It would clear up the whole issue. I agree that the situation is unsatisfactory: we have
1468
the 1929 Act and the 1967 Act and we must amend both. What we really need is a new piece of legislation. However, we are not going to get it. In the circumstances, therefore, this is the best compromise we can achieve—to reduce the term to 24 weeks.
I shall say very little about the relationship between this Bill and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. However, the fact of the matter is that we all know that there is a possibility of amendment to that legislation. I beg noble Lords not to be tempted to go along that line. The embryo issue is of the greatest importance. Indeed, we have all read accounts about families who suffer great hardship and who experience great anguish because of children born with congenital illnesses which cannot be cured in the present state of medicine. Surely, again, this is a choice of the lesser of two evils. Is it not better that by means of scientific research we should find ways by which the number of those children so born can be reduced and that hideous suffering extinguished?
Therefore, let us debate the embryo legislation in its own right and on its own merits. Let us not confuse the matter with what will inevitably be an extremely emotional debate on the subject of abortion. There is only the slenderest link between the two subjects. We need to keep them separate. This Bill put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, gives us the opportunity to separate the two issues. I beg your Lordships to reject the amendment.
7.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, I think that I am slightly relieved that I do not have to stand to support the introductory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. However, integrity demands that I say that I wish to support the Bill for four reasons. First, it separates the physical and legal issues relating to abortion from those relating to the more complex issues of human fertilisation and embryology. While from certain viewpoints there may be attractions in such a linkage, I can see no overriding justification for it. On the contrary, I support the contention of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that it cannot be in the interests of clarity to consider two different kinds of entity in one piece of legislation.
Secondly, I wish to support the Bill because it signals to the community our concern about the present legislation relating to abortion. I share with many others the widespread concern about the current 28-week limit and see the provisions of this Bill as representing an improvement in the existing law. While admitting some exceptions in very exceptional circumstances to the proposed 24-week limit, the Bill closes the gap which enabled so many abortions to be performed legally but on grounds which seemed to many critics, myself included, to be too slight.
There is a widespread desire in the Church for stricter controls on so-called "social" abortions. I believe that there is ground for some hope in this direction within the Bill. However, there is one caveat that I wish to register. It concerns the possible

1469
exceptions to the proposed 24-week limit. Of course I know that we are talking about a relatively small proportion of all abortions, but I wish to stress that, when the Bill reaches the Committee stage, the Church will look for some assurance that the wording of the legislation will ensure that there is no general licence to perform abortions after the 24th week. The drafting details are for lawyers, not for bishops, but the point, I am sure, is clear.
Thirdly, the Bill takes into account the advances in neo-natal and post-natal care for which we are all profoundly grateful. The proposed reduction of the limit to 24 weeks is a recognition of the fact that modern advances in this field have meant that many babies of less than 28 weeks' gestation can now be saved and some late abortions would therefore involve the destruction of a fetus which normally might well survive.
It is that consideration which I am sure leads the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to favour a period of 24 weeks. Because of the continuing advances in neo-natology the legal limits must be kept under constant review. I long for the day when the limit can be further reduced, but in the meantime I see the Bill as a step in the right direction.
Fourthly and finally, the Bill recognises that which we all acknowledge: that we live in a society wrestling with ethical ambiguities. Such recognition is mirrored within the Churches and it comes as no surprise to realise that there is no one explicit Christian view on the subject. The Churches contain people who argue from informed and concerned positions and yet who nonetheless arrive at different conclusions. In such circumstances of complexity and ambiguity the Bill realistically steers a moderate course. That will disappoint or offend a great many people who espouse for one reason or another a more extreme position.
The Church of England, through its Board for Social Responsibility, has been arguing for the 24-week limit for a number of years. Members of your Lordships' House may recall the attempts made a few years ago by the former Bishop of Birmingham, Hugh Montefiore, who sat on the Steps of the Throne a little earlier this evening, to steer through an amendment Bill arguing for just that position.
There is a widespread view that the present law creates an impression that abortion is a slight matter. It is not. Each abortion is a personal tragedy. Despite difference of opinion as to how we should proceed, the Churches are united in their view that abortion represents a major moral dilemma and the prevalence and apparent ease of obtaining abortions in our society suggest a widespread view of the value and distinctiveness of human life that is extremely worrying and distressing. Yet to withhold compassion, particularly in circumstances of extreme distress or need, is also unacceptable. The pain presented by such a dilemma is deeply felt by all caring people.
It is my hope that the Bill will help us to act a little more responsibly in a situation of considerable complexity.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I approach this debate with the conviction that the Abortion Act 1967 is flawed, out of date and needs reconsideration and amendment. The problem is how that is to be achieved. That the Act is flawed is explained in the report of the Select Committee which I had the honour to chair in 1987 and 1988.
First, the Act is flawed because it does not contain any provision which in terms defines the period of pregnancy within which an abortion can lawfully be carried out. There is merely a conventional 28 weeks based on a cryptic and almost unintelligible reference to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which was not an abortion Act and has no application in Scotland. Unless abortion is to be free of time restrictions, an abortion Act ought to specify the period within which abortion can lawfully be carried out.
Secondly, the Act is out of touch with current thinking because, assuming that the 28-week convention is a correct interpretation of the Act, 28 weeks is too late as a maximum gestational period for most abortions. In my opinion, the maximum age should in most cases be 24 weeks. Some of your Lordships may think that it should be even lower. I have no intention of arguing that point now.
Thirdly, the Act is flawed because it was passed without any debate in either House as to the time limit, if any, within which an abortion should be allowed. Surely, whether or not a time limit ought to be imposed, it should at least be discussed.
Fourthly, the Act is flawed because, assuming that the 28-week convention is correct, the Act ought at least to say how such a 28-week period is to be determined. The calculation of gestational age is not an exact science. In the later stages of pregnancy it is impossible to measure the period of pregnancy with a greater degree of accuracy than a spread of about three weeks, even with the benefit of ultrasound scanning.
Fifthly, the Act is flawed because the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, and therefore the convention of a maximum gestational period of 28 weeks, does not apply to Scotland. It is nothing short of ludicrous that a doctor performing an operation south of the Border after the 28th week of pregnancy may be guilty of a crime under the 1929 Act and be sentenced to imprisonment for life while the same doctor, performing the identical operation on the same woman north of the Border, is guilty of no crime at all.
The Bill addresses those five problems and therefore opens the way for debate. However, I understand that the Bill has little chance of reaching the statute book because, being a controversial measure, it is almost certain to run out of time in the other place.
What are the alternatives, given that the 1967 Act cries out for amendment? I should be greatly worried if noble Lords sought to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in this House by adding in Committee clauses which amend the Abortion Act. The embryology Bill—as I shall refer to it—was described by the noble and learned Lord

1471
the Lord Chancellor on Second Reading as a Bill which encompasses a complex issue involving a whole spectrum of medical, scientific, ethical and moral issues.
The noble and learned Lord then stated that the Bill had two main purposes: to regulate infertility treatments and to deal with the embryo research question. I cannot feel that it would be wise to add to that complexity by introducing at the Committee stage in this House a totally different issue which has nothing whatever to do with infertility treatments or embryo research—namely, the time limit within which abortions could be allowed. Human fertilisation and embryology have been dealt with by the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. She reported in 1984, and her report is the source book for that subject matter. The source book for abortion is the report of the Select Committee on the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill which reported in 1988. That report contains 58 paragraphs of text and tables and 315 pages of evidence.
It does not seem to me sensible to add all that additional material to the burden which will be placed on those of your Lordships who will be dealing with the embryology Bill. I hope therefore that this House can be left to deal with the embryology Bill at the Committee stage, without the intrusion of clauses dealing with abortion.
It may be that when the embryology Bill reaches the other place, Members there will amend it by adding clauses to deal with the law of abortion. That of course is a matter entirely for them. It might have great advantages because abortion could then be debated in Government time. Should such amendments be introduced, it seems to me that it would be helpful and it would save a lot of time—it certainly cannot be unhelpful—if the material available to the other place included a full debate on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and the form which a well thought out abortion amendment Bill might take. This would be a valuable contribution which we could make to the work of the other place, if Members there decide—as I understand they can do—to amend the embryology Bill by introducing clauses on abortion.
If that were done, then when the embryology Bill comes back to your Lordships' House with most of the work on infertility treatment and embryo research completed, it would not be such a burdensome task to your Lordships to consider in addition at that stage to the law of abortion.
In other words, my suggestion is that we first consider infertility and embryology on their own and send that Bill back to the Commons thoroughly vetted and polished. We then consider abortion on its own, via the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. If the other place thinks fit to add abortion to the embryology Bill, Members will have in front of them for their consideration a thoroughly vetted and polished abortion Bill. By this means the abortion Bill could be settled in this Session with the minimum of inconvenience to all concerned.
1472
I therefore reached the conclusion that I ought to support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, not because it has a chance of reaching the statute book but because it will enable this House to consider infertility treatments and embryo research on their own, and because of the contribution which that Bill can make to any abortion debate in the other place.
8.5 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, as I can say in public what I said in private to him after another debate. I regret if I said anything acrimonious about him and his chairmanship of the committee. I think I implied that he was taken for a ride by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I realised that when I called the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, naive, that word should not be applied to such a learned judge.
However, I agree with the noble Duke—although I shall not go into the matter again—that the idea that this committee of the House was representative is farcical. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, himself moved the rejection of the Bill of the right reverend Prelate the former Bishop of Birmingham, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford paid tribute. He moved its rejection and he and two others who voted against it were the only representatives concerned with abortion to be put on the committee. However, I shall not go into that matter again.
Baroness White: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, did not give way to me, but perhaps I am not old enough!
Baroness White: My Lords, the noble Earl intervened in my speech last week so perhaps he will allow me to intervene in his. The Select Committees of your Lordships' House make no pretence of being representative. They are responsible to the House, unlike in the other place where committees are representative. I think that we should keep that quite clear.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I did not take down the words but I should be surprised if the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, did not indicate that it was a representative committee. My recollection is that he must have done so and that is why I introduced that word. However, I shall not concern myself with such tactical or debating points this evening.
I wish to say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that I think he knows how much I respect him. Perhaps he is too modest to know how deeply I respect his public spirit, his vigour and eloquence, although I regard those as lesser qualities. I am afraid that he would think that I had gone off my rocker if he found that I agreed with him. If I strayed into the lobby with him tonight he would think that the time had come for me to leave the House, although I am

1473
only 84, as compared to senior Members. So I am afraid I shall not be on that side tonight—very definitely not. I must leave the details of the Bill to others. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, who spoke so well last time, will deal with them.
Up until now one question has not really been explored in the House this evening and that is the question of whether there would be more or fewer late abortions under the Bill. Nobody has come out quite clearly and said that it would be one or the other. Perhaps it is uncertain. It may be that when the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, replies he will say whether he is confident that there will be more or fewer abortions under the Bill. Perhaps he will agree and accept that in future some people will obtain abortions who would not get them without the Bill. To that extent, the Bill promotes abortion. If that is not so then I do not see the point of these clauses in the Bill, but no doubt that will be made clear to us later on. However, again I leave those points to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson.
I speak in simple and brief terms, as a Christian and a socialist. I am not a member of the Christian establishment, as is the right reverend Prelate the Bishop, to whom we listened with such pleasure. I am not a member as he is a member or as leaders of my own party are members of the socialist establishment. I am a rank and file Christian—a rank and file socialist. There are a good many texts which could be produced but one in particular brings those forms of inspiration together. The text in my mind could no doubt be translated in different ways but I offer this version to the House:
"When thou makest a feast, thou shalt call the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind and thou shalt be blessed".
There is no mention of a fetus of course. One would hardly expect it in that quotation. But Christians generally and socialists would agree that above all things they stand for the weak, the helpless and the defenceless. The fetus is the weakest, most defenceless and helpless of any entity, human or otherwise, that one could imagine. I should have thought that any Christian, or indeed any Socialist, would start with the presumption that one should do all in one's power to ensure that there are as few abortions as possible. I am not sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, would disagree with that, as she said how repugnant abortion was. At any rate if we start from that presumption, the question arises whether one can allow abortions at all.
My mind inevitably goes back in time, as does that of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. His mind goes back to 1952, but mine only goes back to 1967. He was not in the Chamber at that time, but we had legislation before us then. I was Leader of the House at the time and it was my position as Leader of the House to speak against the legislation. I said then and I have said ever since that there are circumstances in which I personally would agree to a divorce, and circumstances in which I would even recommend a divorce in my own family. I do that from my own conviction that there are no universal rules in human affairs. There is no rule to which there is not an exception. We are told, "Thou shalt not kill". That was laid down in the
1474
Jewish faith long before Christianity was heard of. However, most Christians and most Jews agree that in some circumstances one has to kill—for example, in defence of one's family or oneself or in defence of one's country, or in defence of a just cause. At any rate that absolute principle is qualified.
We are also told, "Thou shalt not steal". However, that is qualified if one is starving or one's family is starving. In those circumstances few people would fail to steal, if the chance arose. So as regards abortion the question is whether exceptional circumstances exist which should make abortion more readily available, or whether it should be more readily available in any circumstances. I cannot believe personally that we should be told in the course of this debate, or by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, when he concludes the debate, that no one will get an abortion under this Bill in future who would not get it now. In fact the Bill is paving the way to easier abortion in quite a number of cases. For that reason I am entirely opposed to it and I hope that the amendment will be carried.
8.13 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, during the debate on the embryology legislation last week I found myself very much in agreement with my noble friend Lord Caldecote. In particular I agreed with him that the back street abortion era was a great evil. That situation was improved by the Abortion Act 1967. That Act permits the lesser of two evils. I shall never forget seeing the tragic suffering of so many young women as a result of the sordid back street abortion system of the 1950s and 1960s.
I sense a feeling in the House that those who oppose abortion are all members of some strange, inhuman sect. However, I wish to point out that the doctors and nurses who have to carry out abortions find the whole thing repugnant, whether or not they hold any religious views. They find themselves caught in a trap, especially with those women who are more than 18 weeks pregnant. Those are the women in greatest need. They are often terrified, not very bright and socially deprived. What is more, if the pregnancy continues, we know that half of the resulting children will be dead within two years. Many of them will be battered to death. That is the dilemma that faces the caring, thoughtful people who work in the National Health Service.
I suspect that your Lordships may not be aware that in order to eliminate the unpleasant spectacle of the 20-week aborted fetus showing clear signs of life, the fetus is put paid to by injecting the womb with noxious agents. I think noble Lords will understand why nurses and doctors find that repugnant. I suspect that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will result in more abortions being carried out at a later stage, making this unpleasant business more frequent.
I draw the attention of noble Lords to the fact that last year only 22 abortions were carried out after 24 weeks. Furthermore, I am sure it has escaped the notice of noble Lords that there are several hospitals not far from here which will not carry out any

1475
abortions after 14 weeks. There seems to me no good reason for the unseemly haste to pass the Bill. I hope that the House will accept the amendment of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for raising the matter of abortion because the state of the abortion law is so unsatisfactory that it should be kept continually in the public eye. I take part in this debate as an ordinary member of the Church of England. With the greatest respect to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford, I believe my views are a little more representative of the views of the General Synod than his.
When I spoke to people about the Bill they said that it appeared to be a restrictive Bill, lowering the time limit for abortions from 28 to 24 weeks. However, a detailed study of the Bill shows that, far from reducing the number of late abortions, it would in practice allow many abortions to be carried out up to the full term of 40 weeks. As regards late abortions, I believe that there are two principles which find general support in your Lordships' House. The first is that no child which is capable of being born alive should be aborted except to save the life of the mother. Secondly, the number of late abortions should be kept to a minimum. This Bill goes against both of those principles.
It would do away with the protection afforded by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which states that it shall be a felony to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive except for the sole purpose of preserving the life of the mother. Under the Act evidence that the pregnancy had run for a minimum of 28 weeks is prima facie proof that the child is capable of being born alive.
Let us examine the Bill to see what protection is put in place of the 1929 Act. First, we should look at the second page of the Bill. New Section (2A) states:
"No pregnancy may lawfully be terminated after the end of its twenty-fourth week".
That is of course a step in the right direction, but noble Lords should note that the 24-week limit would apply only to abortions approved under subsection (1)(b), with a substantial rider, and under subsection (1)(c).
We should now look at page 1 and at the grounds for abortion in more detail as they are set out in Clause 1(1) (a) to (d). Under Clause 1(1) (a) the ground is that of:
"risk to the life of the pregnant woman".
Your Lordships will note that the phrase,
"risk to the life of the pregnant woman",
is a much lower threshold than that in the Infant Life (Preservations) Act which was concerned with preserving the life of the mother. The 24-week limit would not apply to abortions under this heading. As all pregnancy and childbirth could be said to involve some risk, this would provide an open door for abortions up to 40 weeks. Clause 1(1) (b) states as a ground the:
"risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman".
1476
The 24-week limit would apply to abortions under that heading but not if two doctors were of the opinion that the termination of the pregnancy was essential to prevent serious damage to the mental or physical health of the pregnant woman. That is also a relatively low threshold, particularly when one has regard to the so-called social clause in subsection (2).
In Clause 1(1 )(c) the ground is:
"risk of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing children of her family".
Here the 24-week limit would apply.
In Clause 1(1) (d) the ground is that there is a:
"substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped".
Here the 24-week limit would not apply. Abortions under that ground would be legal up to full term.
Experience with the 1967 Abortion Act shows that if this Bill became law no woman would have any difficulty in finding a doctor who, albeit in sincerity, would give abortion on request however long the pregnancy had lasted. The protection at present given by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act would therefore be almost entirely swept away and not replaced.
There is one other aspect of the matter on which your Lordships' House is entitled to be informed by the supporters of the Bill, or perhaps the Minister may be able to help us. That is how the very late abortions made possible under the Bill will be carried out. By that I mean which method of abortion would be used.
The phrase "termination of pregnancy" is such a bland one that if we are not careful we shall be lulled into feeling that it is like switching off an electric light. We should, however, remember that recent research has confirmed that the fetus feels pain. The most common method of abortion is D&E, which involves dilation of the cervix and the application of a vacuum to the womb by means of a tube inserted into it. The vacuum dismembers the child, enabling it to pass through the tube. That method, which is beastly enough for an early abortion, is surely quite out of the question for a late abortion. Presumably some way of taking the life of a child in the womb before it is taken out of the mother will be used. It would be interesting to know what that method would be.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to inform the House which method or methods will be used in the case of such very late abortions. If he cannot satisfy the House on that point I believe that that alone would be sufficient reason not to give the Bill a Second Reading today.
In summary, the Bill, far from minimising late abortions, would increase their number, and do so until full term. That would mean the abortion of babies at a time when they were capable of being born alive and when they would suffer even more than it appears they do in early abortions. I believe that it is a measure which no civilised country could contemplate. Therefore I shall certainly be voting in favour of the amendment proposed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk.

1477
It has been suggested that we should give the Bill its Second Reading and then amend it in Committee. That would seem to me to be a waste of parliamentary time. Perhaps more important, it would give the wrong message to people outside your Lordships' Chamber as to how we view abortions, and particularly late abortions.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I agree totally with one point which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, the presenter of the Bill made in his vigorous and attractive presentation of his argument—as he usually presents any argument which he puts in this House or used to in another place. I wholly agreed with him that everything that anyone would say was utterly predictable. One could look at the list of speakers and know what they would say.
However, I was flabbergasted to hear the noble Lord and those who support him complain about the rules of procedure relating to private Bills, when I think of what happened to the David Alton Bill in another place. A vast majority of elected representatives voted that Bill through, and by a series of manoeuvres using political and procedural powers it was denied the opportunity to come up to this House so that this House could make its decision on the Bill. It is not for supporters of this Bill to complain about the use of parliamentary procedure to try to obtain a decision on this great issue.
Believing what I believe, I can understand very well that those who reject those ideas might resent the imposition upon a great mass of the population of some moral or ethical principle which that mass of the population do not accept. They say that people who believe as I do are not obliged to participate in the practices, which will only be permitted by law. The practices will be purely permissive. Therefore why not have a civil law which does not interfere but leaves those who dislike a particular practice free not to practise it if they so wish? In other words, there should be no mandatory imposition of a practice upon the mass of the population.
I understand that argument in many matters involving moral and ethical principles. However, in some matters society has always retained and still retains in law the right to impose a moral standard which it will not permit any to disobey. The oldest of all has already been quoted today, Thou shalt not kill—not even the very old, not even the very insane, not even the very handicapped, not even those in pain, not even those in total despair.
Our predecessors included among those one may not kill a human being not yet separated from its mother. They, our predecessors, gave protection to an unborn child which is capable of being born alive. In our time we have lived through days when more and more the power to kill has been taken for granted.
I have never accepted the 28-week limit. I would have supported a reduction to 18 weeks, although I have heard with great interest and concern what was said by my noble friend Lord McColl. The reduction to 24 weeks is at least some reduction, but in this
1478
Bill—and I am surprised that the right reverend Prelate did not see that that ought to change his mind regarding his support of the Bill—there are exceptions which would permit killing—by what means we know not—of the person of more than 24 weeks, with a needle or drug or whatever it may be.
Never have I accepted the social exceptions. Conception, I believe, ought not to be devalued. I do not believe that registered medical practitioners should be given the power to kill a formed human being who has been six months in the growing based upon their personal assessment—medical opinion is sometimes very right and sometimes very wrong—that the consequences would be serious damage to the health of the mother. How often are they wrong?
All of us have at some time encountered a person who has been born seriously handicapped, perhaps into conditions where material circumstances are not of the highest. Sometimes those handicapped people are people of superior wit, often of superior character and sometimes blessed with an affinity to goodness and spirituality, capable of giving and receiving love far greater than those of us born without such handicap. I believe that our predecessors, with their straightforward stand upon principle that, Thou shall not kill the being capable of being born alive, were wiser in their generation. Nothing that I have read or heard will change my view that this appropriation of power over life and death which the Bill extends is anything but barbaric. I support the amendment.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby on introducing the Bill. I certainly respect and admire his vast experience and great gifts as a parliamentarian. I speak in the debate as a Catholic. My noble friend Lord Houghton would not expect me to apologise to him for that. I do not have a medical background, so I do not profess to be an expert on the medical aspects of abortion or embryology.
My background was in local authority and community health care in the 1950s and 1960s in an inner London borough, so my knowledge and experience of the existence of back-street abortions, to which the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, referred, was very real. I knew that girls were thrown out of their homes if they were found to be pregnant. In those days, they had to leave home if they were found to be pregnant. Girls were evicted from lodgings, or digs as they were called in those days, by landladies or landlords, if they were found to be pregnant. They had to get out and had nowhere to go. Housing conditions were not as good at they could have been.
There was still a sad lack of education regarding pregnancy. There was no widespread counselling at all; in fact, as I recall, there was hardly any. There was no general counselling for those girls unless a church was approached to give them some counselling through a priest. In those circumstances of sheer desperation, many of those young kids were

1479
forced to go, often on borrowed money, to back street abortionists and suffer the traumatic experience to which the noble Lord, Lord McColl, referred.
Out of that came the demand for and passing of the 1967 Act. I believe that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who said that the Act was now out of date. It is out of date to the extent that circumstances are now totally different. We are no longer talking about the same situation. There is now a great deal more tolerance. I no longer hear of girls being thrown out of their homes for being pregnant, but, if they are, more help is available through all kinds of agencies to take care of that exigency. By and large there is better housing. We have improved standards, although not enough. We still need more housing.
There have been vast changes in our approach to sex education from primary schools of all denominations upwards. Tremendous strides have been made in the past few years. We have all witnessed the campaigns in the media for safer sex and less promiscuity. Those educational processes go on all the time.
There have been medical advances. Premature babies can now be saved at a much earlier age. They can even live at the age of 20 or 21 weeks by virtue of the wonders of medical science. There have been recent developments which have given rise to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. I was present at the debate in the Chamber and have read the proceedings. When the discussions continue in Committee, they will bring people to a greater understanding about the beginning of life, which is important in all these arguments. We have embarked on those discussions as a result of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. People will understand those of us who say that life begins at conception. There will be a better understanding in the world outside this goldfish bowl of why people hold to that point of view.
So the Bill, as has been outlined by the noble Duke and others, would make matters worse. It goes in the opposite direction. Rather than going back to that understanding and developing something from it, it goes to the other extreme. As a number of speakers have said, it virtually allows abortions up to birth. Surely that cannot be an improvement. That was never envisaged in the 1967 Act. As was said at the time, it was not the aim of the sponsors of the Act:
"to leave a wide open door to abortion on request".
That seems to be one of the aims of the present Bill. It seems to open the door to that. That is why most people who think like me oppose it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, used what has become a popular argument; namely, that because there is no Infant Life (Preservation) Act in Scotland, there is no abortion there after 28 weeks and they do not need the Bill: the situation is all right, there is nothing wrong with it and they do not have our problems. However, regardless of whether they have the Act, they operate under the same professional bodies and consultancy bodies. They operate the same code of conduct. That is
1480
what determines what happens there. There would certainly be trouble if there were abortions after the 28th week in Scotland. While the Scottish situation might be some kind of defence on paper for those people who are in favour of the Bill, the defence does not exist. Under those circumstances, the possibility of abortions up to birth or even up to the 28th week does not exist. I have no figures to prove that it has ever happened.
My noble friend Lord Houghton and other noble Lords mentioned the Select Committee. I do not want to go into the matter too deeply except to say that I was disappointed in the committee's findings. I make no bones about its composition but it dealt with the subject of late abortions from a narrow viewpoint. It did not take into account the possible psychiatric and social effects of legislation.
One point that has concerned me for a long time and which I shall illustrate by example is that applicants in the field of obstetrics, gynaecology and anaesthetics and psychiatry have been turned down because of their approach to abortion. They are asked questions about their attitude to abortion. When I was chairman of an interviewing panel for a teaching hospital, we interviewed many doctors, but we never asked that kind of question. In those days that kind of question would never have been asked of any applicant for a job. It is apparently becoming all too frequent nowadays. I understand that, in another place, the Select Committee on Social Services unanimously agreed that the working of the conscience clause in the Abortion Act should be investigated and it is currently carrying out a review.
There are many other points that concern me but I hope that I have at least said enough to indicate where I stand and why I shall support the amendment.
8.40 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I shall be very brief. Although it is not my subject, I felt that I had to say a few words. Without doubt, if this Bill were to become law—as I hardly imagine it will—there would definitely be far more abortions. Some noble Lords have said that it is an open door and that it would be near murder. I believe that that is rather a strong word to use.
The subject causes great suffering and heartache. It is the women who have to suffer. I therefore consider that any Act which increases abortions cannot be good. It is true that there is the most superb medical care which presumably does away with the majority of pain. However, the mental pain remains. I therefore support the amendment. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson said, to destroy young life is extremely unpleasant.
I am not happy about one aspect of the Bill. We have heard much this evening about the 1929 Act which allows babies to be aborted up to 28 weeks. They can be alive then. I thought that the Act stated that if anyone—presumably, but not necessarily, a doctor—performed the operation to abort a child, and if he were not found out he would be all right if the child did not die. However, if the child died I

1481
thought under that law the doctor would be committing a felony. It is a point that worries me.
I know nothing about the subject, so I should not be speaking. However, I shall definitely vote for the amendment of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk.
8.42 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. I do so because in certain circumstances, which have been mentioned several times before, this Bill allows abortion up to the age of birth. My view stems from my conviction that abortion, and in particular late abortion, is nothing less than murder. This was brought out most movingly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene.
I am strengthened in my thinking by such presentations of late abortion as I have seen. I refer in particular to the film "The Silent Scream" which some noble Lords may have seen. This showed in graphic detail an abortion operation on a fetus of some 20 to 24 weeks. I do not know the exact period. As the name implies, the central feature of this film was a close up of the mouth of the fetus opened in a silent scream as the forceps closed in on the head. It goes without saying that the later the operation after 24 weeks, the greater the suffering. Indeed, in operations up to the time of birth, say, 36 to 40 weeks, the abortionist has to kill the fetus, generally I understand by crushing the head or injecting a lethal fluid before it emerges from the mother's body. If it were killed after it emerges, the abortionist could be charged with murder. I do not wish to go into further medical details.
Far more moving for me was a talk that I heard in the Royal Albert Hall in 1987 (I think it was) by Mr. David Alton. The climax was the release from the roof of the Albert Hall of 2·5 million tiny paper darts each represrenting a fetus aborted since the Abortion Act 1967. I gather that the present figure of abortions is about 3 million.
Surely one has to consider how many potential scientists, doctors, musicians, painters, even politicians, were in that vast collection. It may of course have had its fair share of criminals too. I accept that there will have been some—they are of course in a minority, but they are there—who would have suffered terribly in their lives from spina bifida or some other serious condition. Nevertheless, I hold the view which was expressed when we discussed the embryology Bill last Thursday that fetuses like embryos are products of a divine creative process which we interfere with at our peril.
I should like to make one further point that has not been dealt with in any detail although the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, touched upon it. It is the appalling, traumatic effects on so many women who suffer abortions. I have heard of some from my friends, and indeed I have seen one or two personally. I feel that it is a very powerful argument against the late abortions which are made possible by the Bill. I therefore have no hesitation whatever in giving my support to the amendment to be moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, first, I should like to dispose of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. I do not think that that Bill should be used in this House as a vehicle to change the law on abortion. If Members of another place wish to use it as such a vehicle, that is up to them. When the Bill returns to us we shall no doubt give those amendments our serious consideration.
Having said that, the Bill brought before us by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is in my view an absolute horror. As I understand it, it would allow abortion on demand up to birth and that could mean the first stages of labour right up to the very end. It is true that, according to the way in which the noble Lord has drafted the Bill, the young woman concerned would need two doctors to be prepared to testify in court about the serious mental or physical danger that she was in; or the dangers that the siblings in the family would be in if the birth was allowed to proceed. We all know that one can always find unscrupulous people in any profession. It has even been known for Members of your Lordships' House to be found guilty of various offences and spend time at Her Majesty's pleasure. Therefore, if Members of this House—where we speak and vote on our honour—can be capable of dastardly deeds so can members of any other profession, doctors included.
One need not wait late into pregnancy for doctors to decide whether there are any dangers to the mother, or the rest of the family, or to the fetus in the womb of being disabled. Whether one should—and that is another question—abort a fetus merely because it is disabled can be discovered at an earlier time because medical science is moving forward at an ever increasing rate.
It is interesting to note that records in the neo-natal unit at University College Hospital show that during the period 1979–1984—now some five years out of date—babies of a gestation period of 23 to 24 weeks who were born alive had a 25 per cent, chance of still being alive at one year. By 27 to 28 weeks the chance has risen to 64 per cent. Therefore, there is an increasingly high proportion of babies who will survive normal birth or even an abortion if they are not killed within the womb before they are aborted.
Other noble Lords will probably know better than I the methods of abortion. I hope that the Minister will tell us about them when she replies. I understand that the further into pregnancy one goes it is often necessary for the child to be killed at least 24 hours before the abortion takes place. The reason is that the child begins to decompose and it is easier to cut up inside the mother before being removed piecemeal. That is a horrifying process, particularly bearing in mind that the mother will have felt that child moving inside her from about 16 weeks. Therefore, for the last 24 hours of carrying the child she will have been carrying only a dead lump. I do not know what that will do to her mental condition.
For those and many other reasons that I shall not go into because the hour is late, I must support the I noble Duke's amendment.
Lord Brightman: My Lord, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to correct him on one point. He told your Lordships that if there is serious danger to the health of siblings it will be permissible under the Bill to abort the child at any gestational age. That is not so. Clause 1 (2A)(b) provides that abortion on the grounds of serious danger to the health of siblings is forbidden after week 24.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his correction. He is far better versed in the law and the way in which Bills are written than I am.
8.55 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I shall not take sides with either the noble Duke on the amendment or the noble Lord on the Bill in respect of the personal ideologies of either. They are both my friends—with the noble Duke it is familial—and I would not wish to cool my friendships by taking sides on issues where they are antagonistic towards each other.
I have had 46 years' experience in this House of which nearly 20 years have been full-time during my retirement. I ask myself what are the interests of the House. I know of the difficulty that the usual channels have in recruiting members of Select Committees, particularly those on private Bills which may go on and on, with a great degree of interference in one's private life. The difficulty in recruitment to Select Committees would be increased if it was known that their findings would be regarded with total indifference by the House that appointed them. Therefore, the only live issue in my mind—and my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman, who was the chairman of the Select Committee must be the keeper of my conscience—is whether the Bill embodies the recommendations of the Select Committee which we have before us. If it does, I believe that it deserves reference to a Committee of the Whole House.
We should not duck that obligation on the ground that it will be a waste of time because of what will happen in the other place. If we did not discuss anything that may be a waste of time we should arrive home much earlier in the evenings and have much longer holidays, but I do not believe that it would be a good principle on which to run the House. I do not speak ideologically but merely as a long established Member of your Lordships' House.
On the ideological side, I should be with the noble Duke, who dislikes abortion, as does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson. So do I. I should never be a consenting party to an abortion of any child that I had engendered. I have said that all my life because I believe it to be wrong. However, I must live in a world where I know that abortion will take place either in the backstreet or on the National Health Service. As legislators, we must set aside our private religious beliefs on the basis that a facility is provided for us but we shall not take advantage of it. That is my standpoint and on that I rest my case.
I believe that it is wrong to make Committee points on Second Reading and even worse to make
1484
Second Reading speeches in Committee. However, certain matters have been raised and I find myself in line with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford when he says that he hopes that the period will progressively reduce itself. I also hope for that and I see no reason why it should not. There is always a time lag between the law as it is and the law as it should be. Medical science and technology are marching ahead so fast that we as legislators cannot keep pace with them.
I shall mention briefly two matters to which I should like to attend in Committee. First, the words "capable of life" need cosmetic improvement. They should read "capable of life with or without life support apparatus", or whatever it may be. The best form of life support for a newborn infant is its mother's breast. However, if by chance she is not in good lactational form, there is Cow & Gate to rely on. One of these days we may be able to take babies with solid lungs who cannot breathe and oxygenate their blood through a machine which is used in heart surgery and which may be adaptable. There are many conditions where, if only the baby could be prolonged for a little while, it could live. I hope therefore that the period will be reduced and reduced and reduced.
Over and above that, all I want to say is that I believe that confusing this issue with the embryology Bill which we have before us would lead us into parliamentary schizophrenia. It is absolutely not to be considered for one moment. The two issues are totally separate. Under the embryology Bill we are asking Parliament to express an opinion and finally pass a law as to how long you may play with an embryo, but an abortion Bill deals with how late the life can be extinguished. The two subjects are absolutely incompatible. I referred to schizophrenia, but that is a rather out-of-date term. It refers now to what used to be called dementia praecox. What used to stand for Jekyll and Hyde is now known as hysterical dissociation of the personality. That is what we shall suffer from if we try to discuss these two Bills as if they were one.
9 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for introducing this Bill and thus giving us an opportunity to discuss the abortion issue quite separately from the embryo Bill to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading last Thursday.
I am not a Roman Catholic. I merely say that as a statement of fact lest it be thought that everyone speaking in favour of the amendment of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk is a Roman Catholic, which is certainly not the case.
As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, expounded so lucidly, this Bill effectively introduces abortion on demand up to 40 weeks or full term. At present we already effectively have abortion on demand up to 28 weeks. Many of us who believe in the sanctity of human life regard that as unacceptable. This Bill effectively removes any time limit on abortion for reasons listed in Clause 1(1)(a) and(b).

1485
It is an appalling fact that we are more vulnerable in the womb that at any other period of our growth cycle. At this point I should say how much I agreed with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on that point. Thus the one place which was intended by God to be the most secure has, through the advances of science and the deviousness of human nature, become the most vulnerable. Now the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, seeks to make the gestation period in the womb even more vulnerable.
I trust that the House will treat this Bill with the contempt which it deserves. I urge your Lordships to support my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk and vote for his amendment.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, before this debate I thought I should talk about the argument to keep the embryo Bill and the abortion Bill separate. I shall do that very briefly because so much has been said. I am very surprised that a number of people seem not to have read the report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman.
Perhaps I may deal with the clinical problem which affects doctors which they conscientiously try to discharge; that is, the only stages at which they have sampling techniques to try to discover how matters are progressing in the womb is quite late in pregnancy. Screening is done by ultrasound at something like 16 to 18 weeks, alpha feto protein at 16 to 18 weeks and choria villus biopsy can be done, if the mother wants it, and the evidence of abnormality obtained at 20 weeks. The decision after that is the patient's. However, those techniques do not provide early evidence of abnormality.
I now turn to the area of early diagnosis. The background to the whole thing is the eternal concern of mothers that they will have abnormal offspring, particularly in families where that has happened before. It is estimated that at some time in their reproductive live about half of the world's women conceive with abnormal chromosomal patterns and most of those pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion. Until recently those infants who were born died. For the majority there was no effective treatment. It may now be possible by detailed evaluation of the fertilised ovum to carry out early diagnosis before the primitive streak has formed. The scientists investigating that matter under the strictest central control believe that they may be able to produce evidence of abnormalities which are present. The decision is whether there should be an early destruction of the conceptus. If that is done, there could be an avoidance of so much of the agony which has been referred to this evening in all kinds of phrases, particularly if a deformed child dies late in pregnancy or at birth.
9.6 p.m.
The Marquess of Lothian: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I should like to say that sometimes I am surprised and saddened that, whereas the House invariably and rightly expresses sympathy with the welfare of the animal kingdom, it seems to me that sometimes when we are discussing abortion there is
1486
a tendency to consider the fetus as an inanimate and unfeeling subject.
Therefore, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a paper published by the British Medical Journal in 1980 and written by Dr. Valman, a distinguished paediatrician, and Dr. Robinson, a consultant gynaecologist; it is entitled What the Foetus Feels. In that paper certain scientific and detailed descriptions are given with diagrams of how, for example, only nine weeks after conception the fetus is well enough formed to bend its fingers round an object in the palm of the hand.
The article is lengthy and I shall not take up your Lordships' time with it except for one short quotation:
"The foetus needs to be heavily sedated by sedating the mother before intrauterine transfusions. Otherwise he will move away from the needle".
Therefore, I venture to say to your Lordships that when we are considering the thousands of fetuses whose lives have already been ended at this stage and when we are considering others which may well have to undergo the same fate, they should not be dismissed as objects incapable of feeling extreme pain. For this and for many other reasons which have been adduced by noble Lords, I intend to support my noble friend's amendment.
9.8 p.m.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, in making my case I wish to make it clear that I fully acknowledge the sincerity of those who take a different view from mine and as a mother I understand the depths of their feelings. However, we are dealing with two separate persons, each of whom has rights, sadly rights which are in conflict with each other. On the one side we have the mother to be who has the right to live a life of her own choosing; on the other the unborn child who having been conceived by its mother and father has the right to live.
There is of course a great difference between the circumstances of these two sets of people. The mother is able to marshall her arguments forcefully and with great depth of feeling. The unborn child has no voice that we in this Chamber can hear. As yet it has no power of any kind to plead its rights, let alone defend them. Most sadly, the name of Parliament and its deliberations and decisions seems at times to replace the name of God.
With this Bill advocating abortion up to birth we are abandoning what has been the civilised standard for centuries; namely, that every human being, if he or she is to be treated by a doctor or specialist, is to be treated for his or her own particular benefit and not exploited for the perceived benefit of others.
I as a mother understand the anguish which sadly, today can rarely be relieved by the efforts of childless couples who wish to adopt. Some adoption agencies in different parts of the country closed their lists of approved couples who were waiting to adopt because of the lack of babies.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford said that the Churches are undecided. May I respectfully say that I believe the Catholic Church

1487
is not. I also know many other Christians and friends of the Jewish faith who share this feeling of repulsion.
This is a crossroads decision. It will determine whether our nation takes the civilised moral road or whether we compromise the principles and question the absolute sanctity of life; namely, that every stage from conception to death is to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect. I have also witnessed abortion, heard the cry of babies and seen their movements before death.
In Paul's letter to the Hebrews it is written:
"To be alive is no man's gift, it is God's gift; and to end life is no man's right, but God's right".
We should deny this Bill a Second Reading.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I apologise for not putting down my name to speak. However, I did that quite deliberately, because I do not profess to be an expert in this subject, neither do I claim to have had a revelation which enables me to determine when life begins and when life ends. So I cannot get myself involved in these high-sounding debates about that subject. I leave that to people who have these revelations and put themselves on a level where they can decide truly moral issues.
But listening to the debate—and that is what I intended to do—I noticed that nearly all the opponents of this Bill stressed in all seriousness how important it was that this subject of abortion should be separated from the question of the embryo Bill. I think the whole House said that, and I hope that the mover of the amendment, the noble Duke, will take note of that, because I consider that to be one of the most important things that has been mentioned this evening.
I say that purely as a layman. I have no religion. I am what is described in some places as a humanist. I have been terrified by listening to some of the things that described what happened to the unborn child or the fetus, call it what you will. I am also horrified when I read history and see some of the terrible things that have been done to human beings in the name of the angels. Somebody wrote to me and advised me that in this debate I should be on the side of the angels. I wrote back and said that I did not know there were any angels, but I would certainly be on the side of what I consider to be the moral rights or wrongs. One thing I shall never do when a women, or a doctor, is faced with a certain choice, is try to decide what that decision should be. I shall just thank everybody I possibly can that it is not me who has to take that decision. If a woman faced with that tremendously difficult problem has to take that decision, she will have my support, and I hope my understanding; but she would never have my instruction because I think that that is not moral. That is downright immoral.
Having listened to the debate, I cannot, for the life of me, see any reason why the Second Reading is being opposed, and that it should be given a Second Reading in six months' time. If it is read a second time in six months' time does that imply that the mover of the Motion believes that there is
1488
something in the Bill that is worth considering in six months' time, or is it a move just to stop it? Nowhere have I yet heard people opposing the Bill tonight say whether or not they want to abolish all abortions.
We got the nearest to it when my noble friend Lord Stallard said that he believed that life begins at conception. Then we get dangerously near to the subject of whether or not contraception is acceptable to most people. Let us all be honest. I have said this before in this House. If we are talking about religion and about fundamental beliefs, the first thing to do is to be honest and frank. Those who contemplate voting for the amendment should ask themselves the question whether they really think that abortion should be abolished altogether. If the answer is no, then in all honesty they should vote for the noble Lord's Bill.
What does it do? I have listened and been told what happens at 24 weeks; what happens at 28 weeks; and what a difficult situation it is for the doctors who have to carry out these abortions. I have heard all that not only here but elsewhere. Realising that a doctor at perhaps three weeks' pregnancy, or four weeks' pregnancy, can see quite clearly that what is going to happen will be detrimental both for the child and the mother, I cannot believe that anybody in this House would vote against abortion at that limit.
If my guess is right that faced with that decision as a parent people would want an abortion that soon, then let us have a Second Reading. That would then enable us to first to keep this Bill and this issue separate from the embryo Bill. Secondly it would give the opponents of the Bill the opportunity to go into Committee and say when they think that abortion should be stopped, and what the length of pregnancy should be.
If they have any doubt about the subsections which enable doctors to go outside the limit, then an amendment would take care of that by removing them. I cannot for the life of me understand why anybody wants merely to stop discussion on this matter. I must come to the conclusion that it is for an ulterior motive, and that that ulterior motive is so that they can add something to the embryo and research Bill.
9.18 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, we must recognise that the debate on this Bill does not centre on issues of right or wrong but is directly an exploration of conflicts of values. Views derived from the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church are necessarily opposed to abortion, though even in that Church there are differences of opinion. The mainstream of Protestant theology, and the moral tradition to which it has given rise, permits abortion under careful legal regulation, and generally approves the provisions which were embodied in the 1967 Act. But again there are disagreements among those in that tradition.
Some indications suggest that Protestant views are supported by a significant majority of the general population. The most recent survey that I have seen published as the 5th Report of the British Survey of Social Attitudes found that 54 per cent, of men and

1489
women held that legal abortion should be permitted on the basis of the woman's choice, and 59 per cent, on the couple's choice. The proportion of people favouring legal abortion on grounds of fetal abnormality, rape and danger to the woman's health was very significantly higher. Ninety-three per cent. of all respondents thought that it should be permitted on that basis.
The second indication of a majority view is that abortion on statutory grounds is available in medical practices under very strict administrative regulation by the Department of Health, in both the public and private sectors. All abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy must be carried out in national health hospitals. Given the number of abortions performed annually, it is clear that a majority of responsible medical people support the Act and treat their patients under its terms.
Inevitably therefore we come to a conflict of values between people of different religious beliefs which cannot be resolved by discussion or argument or by reference to the empirical data concerning the medical or social results of prohibiting abortion in the past or permitting it in recent years. At this point the only acceptable solution is the practice of tolerance, itself an inescapable element in a democratic society.
In my view no more compelling words will be spoken than those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in last week's debate in this House on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. He said:
"I have to speak as a Christian believer and I owe an absolute obedience to God, but I would challenge my right if I were to assert it—and I do not—to impose my theological views upon the conscience—the responsible conscience, responsibly exercised—of others".—[Official Report, 7/12/89; col. 1022.]
The 1987 report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill addressed the flaws in the 1967 Act so cogently analysed in the speech tonight of its chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. In my view it also demonstrated beyond dispute that the medical profession in these islands has responsibly carried out its duties in respect of abortion. I think that the evidence cited by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, supports the conclusion that the recommendations of the Select Committee have secured the wide approval reflected in the dignified and informed speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford.
Now we face a situation in which the opinion of a minority is sought to be imposed upon those who do not accept it. That minority is determined to impose its theological views upon the conscience—the responsible conscience, responsibly exercised under our law—of the majority. Further, this minority, which I am bound to describe as authoritarian in its attitude, is not in the position of having to struggle to disseminate its opinions or to safeguard its members against coercion by the majority. All of its members are free to follow the discipline of their Church and they do not run any risk of having imposed on them the treatments or advice which may be available to their fellow citizens
1490
under the Abortion Act as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, sought to meet that point by saying that societies have always imposed by law the moral injunction, "Thou shalt not kill". He then turned his own belief that abortion is murder into a universal truth and naturally to be condemned by everyone on the ground that abortion is murder. The noble and learned Lord's argument is not compelling for those of us on the other side of the argument who do not identify abortions lawfully conducted as murder, and he fails to resolve the difficulty which concerns me.
Those who support the noble Duke often assume that they alone represent the claims of conscience in these matters. Many of the rest of us—
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I have not intervened before although I have felt tempted to do so. We live in a pluralist society. In no way do I, as a Catholic, a papist or whatever one likes to call it, want to impose Catholic views on the noble Lord or on any other noble Lord. We live in a pluralist society and we do not believe in doing that.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I am glad to know that. But I am now exceedingly puzzled to know what is the purpose of the noble Duke's amendment. Before I sit down I shall seek to attempt to demonstrate to the noble Duke exactly why I think that he and his co-religionists are attempting to impose their views upon those of us who do not accept them.
Many of the rest of us now have no alternative but to insist that the moral exhortations of our consciences are just as worthy of respect in relation to public policy on abortion as our opponents claim for theirs. I also wish to insist that some of the language used in public discussion on this issue is an unacceptable means of communication among citizens in a democracy. I do not take kindly to reading descriptions of abortion clinics—the lawful existence of which I support in circumstances in which they are staffed by responsible members of the medical profession—as death camps, even though I flatter myself to be as sensitive as anybody else to the emotional distress and family and personal tragedies which may lead to abortions or afflict those who undergo them.
I am outraged to read of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service—a body which has provided necessary information and compassionate counselling to women who may be considering abortion—described as,
"the largest mass-murdering organisation in this country".
I read with extreme distaste that the administrator of Life said that a father gaoled for kicking his unborn baby to death,
"very rightly received a stiff sentence but gynaecologists who did the same thing by different means receive big fat fees for it".
Finally, I am alarmed by what I have read in persistent newspaper reports which have appeared in recent weeks about one section of the movement against abortion which has brought hooligans,

1491
describing themselves as the "Green Berets" of the anti-abortion movement, from the United States to this country so that they may use their extensive domestic experience to persecute and harry vulnerable women.
The Guardian recently dedicated a whole page to a description of riots outside clinics organised by the so-called "Operation Rescue". The correspondent wrote:
"I watched women driven to hysteria … outside a Lancashire clinic … (where the) operating theatre was invaded by Rescue … Those arrested included a Catholic priest and several of the 22 North Americans who came to Britain earlier this year as full-time organisers for 'Operation Rescue Outreach'".
Of course, this nastiness is an extreme example. Many movements attract a violent, sometimes psychopathic fringe. Moreover, many honourable democrats are opposed to abortion and, I am sure, to such methods of promoting their beliefs. However, I hope that many more of them will publicly repudiate the violence of behaviour and language which undermines democratic procedures and reduces reasoned argument to the hurling of abuse at their opponents.
I support the Bill put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I especially support the warning given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, about the tragic consequences for medical research, and for the future of many children yet to be born, if we permit the issue of abortion to be tangled up with our discussions on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. I conclude by commending to the House the words of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, on this point—
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down could he kindly explain, preferably not in violent language, how it is that perfectly ordinary NHS hospitals refuse to carry out abortions after 13 weeks? Is he suggesting that such a hospital is a religious organisation?
Lord McGregor of Durris: No, my Lords; I am not suggesting any such thing. I based what I said in respect of the conduct of abortions on the very extensive evidence which is printed in the report of the Select Committee. The committee received a great deal of evidence from gynaecologists and obstetricians.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord that many Members of your Lordships' House who do not agree with the view taken by the noble Lord would, nevertheless, totally repudiate the kind of actions which he described in his speech.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I greatly welcome the assurance given by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. However, it never entered my head that such language or, I hope, such thoughts would have been present in the mind of any noble Lord who has contributed or listened to the debate. But assuredly such thoughts, such violence, such lack of charity and such contempt for opponents are widely present
1492
in the discussions which take place on this issue outside your Lordships' House. They are stimulated by those who share some of the beliefs about which we have heard from noble Lords tonight.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, all too often when one winds up a debate one realises that the notes that one had prepared before the debate started were quite inappropriate to use at the termination of the debate. While I agree with a number of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, I take the view that those who take a point of view different from me—in whatever party they may be, mine or others—do so with a sincerity no less than mine. I expect that they will treat me in precisely that way. I may think that they are wrong, and they may think that I am wrong; but we take part in a debate as civilised human beings.
Over many years, I have been interested in the subject of abortion, as have many of your Lordships. I was one of those people who thought himself privileged to support David Steel's Bill when it came before another place in 1967.1 did as much as I could to help David Steel present his Bill because I was conscious of the appalling situation which existed before we created legislation that established the issue on a proper legalistic basis. The things that were going on in back steets, the hardship and cruelty that women—sometimes young and ignorant, sometimes suffering from a situation which they did not understand—were deplorable.
There have been moments during the debate when I wondered whether we were rehashing the 1967 Second Reading of that Bill when people were saying how monstrous it was that we should have any legislation that dealt with abortion. I am deeply grateful that the Bill was passed. As Secretary of State, I sought in those years (and previously as a Minister in the department) to find ways in which it could be administered fairly and in which people could be properly counselled. It was always my hope that we would have a Bill brought before us which, bit by bit, would shorten the period during which it would be possible and legal, except under very special circumstances, for an abortion to be carried out.
My noble friend's Bill, which I support, recognises that modern medicine enables us to tighten up the legislation without creating new problems. I do not accept that the consequences of my noble friend's Bill, if it were to be passed, even as it is worded now, would be more abortions than at present. I do not believe that, and I should like to hear what evidence anyone has for such a suggestion. Late abortions should be kept to a minimum, and the Bill will keep them to a minimum because there will be a change from 28 weeks to 24 weeks.
My noble friend would not have presented the Bill at this moment—good though it is—had it not been for the Long Title of the embryology Bill and the threat that our serious and sensible debate on the recommendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, would be damaged and confused by the introduction of amendments on abortion in the

1493
middle of that Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was absolutely right when he said:
"I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ennah".—[Official Report, 7/12/89; col. 1023.]
To start any sentence with that phrase is remarkable in itself. Very rarely has he agreed with anything that I have said in your Lordships' House. However, he did on this matter. He said that:
"The question of the abortion time-limit is quite different from that which we are now discussing".
So it is important that we should have a means of separating out two quite different issues. This has been said across the Floor of the House. It was said by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Many Members have recognised that it would be very damaging, whichever way we go on embryo research, to find that we are debating the two issues at the same time. So my noble friend chose a good time at which to introduce the Bill.
All right, the Bill has good content. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, clearly said, it carries out to the letter the recommendations of the Select Committee's report. I have not previously heard that other people were criticising the report of the noble and learned Lord. I did not hear, when the matter was debated in this House, that people thought that the report was unrepresentative. I thought that the research work which went into the report was very valuable indeed. I thank and congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, on it.
My noble friend Lord Houghton has introduced a Bill based on the report which provides the evidence and research on which we shall debate the Bill. What does that mean? We can amend the Bill as we wish. If there are those here who say that 24 weeks is too long a period, then they may move amendments that it should be 22, 20 or 18 weeks, or whatever. When we give a Second Reading to a Bill we are not saying that we agree with every little bit of it. We are saying that it provides a basis for a reasonable debate.
When we examine those parts of the Bill which define the special circumstances in which there could be a late pregnancy, and we refer to the risk to the life of the pregnant mother, and the risk of injury to the physical or mental health and so on, we are expressing suggestions in the Bill. Every one of the clauses could be amended, tightened up or loosened or whatever. We are doing that, reflecting the experience of doctors and nurses who over the years have been working in the field.
We know perfectly well that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the British Medical Association, the British Paediatric Assocation, the Clinical Genetics Society—I could go on into the nursing profession—all say, "We wish to see the gestational age limit of viability in the Infant Life (Preservation) Act changed from 28 to 24 weeks". They support the Bill. I have sought other medical evidence. I shall not give it because time is late, but it was of the circumstances that are described in
1494
Clause 1(1) paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of my noble friend's Bill.
When we come to Second Reading, we can deal in detail with the problems of congenital abnormalities. The last time we debated them, we were not in the position of understanding the AIDS situation. For example, the wife of a former drug addict might have a blood test to discover whether she is HIV positive. The test proves negative, the couple go ahead with the plan to start a family. The woman falls pregnant, she has another test at eight weeks which again proves negative. But at five months she has a further test which proves positive. The woman carrying the virus has approximately a 50 per cent, chance of bearing an infected baby, while her own risk of developing AIDS is increased by the pregnancy.
If anyone says that that is not a situation in which, with medical advice as suggested in the Bill, there is a case for abortion, then I do not know what a good case is. However, if Members of your Lordships' House do not believe that, they can tighten up this Bill. What this Bill does is create an opportunity for your Lordships' House to send to another place two clean pieces of paper. One is your Lordships' reflections on the human embryology legislation, and the other is a Bill which deals with abortion. What they do in another place is for them to decide. We have a certain sense of honour and a certain sense of responsibility as a revising Chamber in trying to get the situation clear. I do not believe that we can send to another place a Bill which confuses abortion and embryology. I think therefore that we have to have two debates.
We have one Bill before us tonight. It is a Bill which can be easily amended in one way or another. We are a democratic society and a democratic House and the will of the House will prevail. This is not the law of the Medes and the Persians, or even the law of Douglas Houghton, it is a Bill which springs from the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. The Bill gives us the opportunity of establishing a clear situation.
If I did not say at the beginning of my speech that I was speaking for myself and not for all my honourable friends, let me do so right now. I made that point last week and I think everyone understands that. I do not seek to speak for others. As I have already said, I hold the deepest respect for the integrity of those who hold an absolutely different view to my own. I hope that at the end of this debate tonight we shall have a Bill which can go into Committee for amendment, if we think that is right. We shall then be able to deal in a proper and responsible way with the Bill that had its Second Reading last Thursday. I therefore support, in that spirit, the Bill which was so ably moved by my noble friend.
9.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the subject which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, brings before us today is one on which as we all realise, Members of both Houses, and many people

1495
elsewhere, hold, with equal sincerity, very strong and widely differing views.
As I made clear to your Lordships last Thursday when the House was debating the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, this Government, like their predecessors of both main political parties, are neutral on the ethical issue of abortion. Like individual Members of both Houses, Ministers themselves hold strong and widely divergent views on this issue of conscience. The Government can therefore have no collective view on the merits of the proposals which the noble Lord has set before the House.
Today's debate is about abortion, and in particular late abortion. Therefore, my role as spokesman for the Government is to provide an impartial assessment of the practical effects of the Bill, and, from the advice available to me, to provide whatever information may help the House to reach a decision.
First, I should comment on the legal position. This has been touched on by a number of your Lordships, not least by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, himself, but I think it bears repetition in what I may perhaps venture to call a consolidating way.
In 1967 Parliament was given the opportunity in a Private Member's Bill to build on an existing framework of criminal law which prevented abortions except in a very restrictive set of circumstances. Parliament agreed to do so on a free vote.
We have already heard that the interaction of the Abortion Act 1967 with the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which latter Act makes it an offence to destroy any child capable of being born alive, in practice, creates an upper limit in England and Wales at which abortions are performed. At present, this limit is 28 weeks because the Infant Life (Preservation) Act contains a rebuttable presumption that a fetus of 28 weeks' gestation or more is capable of being born alive. This means that in the event of a prosecution under the Act, in respect of the death of a child of 28 weeks' or more gestation, the onus would be on the defence to prove that the fetus was not capable of being born alive. In the case of the death of a child before the end of 28 weeks, it would be for the prosecution to prove that the fetus was capable of being born alive. The question of whether a child is capable of being born alive is for the court to decide in any particular case on the basis of the evidence before it.
Whereas the 1967 Act applies to England, Wales and Scotland, the upper limit created by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act does not apply to Scotland. In Northern Ireland neither the Abortion Act nor the Infant Life (Preservation) Act applies.
The Infant Life (Preservation) Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, introduced in 1987, sought to reduce this presumption of viability from 28 to 24 weeks. As he explained, that Bill was referred to a Select Committee in your Lordships' House. Early in 1988 that committee recommended that the Bill should not proceed because it felt that an
1496
amendment to the 1929 Act was a wholly unsuitable method of legislating for a time limit on abortions. The Select Committee went on to recommend changes to the Abortion Act.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said, the Select Committee's principal recommendation was that a doctor who carried out an abortion in good faith in accordance with the statutory provisions should not be liable to prosecution for the crime of child destruction. The committee therefore recommended that Section 5(1) of the Abortion Act should be repealed to disengage that Act from the 1929 Act. The Government acknowledged that there was some merit in that proposal.
The Bill now before your Lordships' House attempts to implement the Select Committee's recommendations and in one respect would go further. The effect of the Bill would be to allow abortion up to the end of the 24th week of gestation on the same grounds as exist in the 1967 Act, and to allow abortion after the end of the 24th week of gestation in three circumstances. Those circumstances are that the continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman; that two doctors are of the opinion that abortion is essential to prevent serious damage to the mental or physical health of the pregnant woman; or that the continuation of the pregnancy would involve substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical and mental abnormalities that it would be seriously handicapped.
The Bill does not amend the 1929 Act in all its applications but provides that no offence is committed by a registered medical practitioner who terminates a pregnancy in accordance with the 1967 Act (as amended by the Bill).
A further provision in the Bill, and one which was not included in the Select Committee's recommendations, is that, if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion that the pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week, that opinion shall be conclusive.
The introduction of a specified time limit in the Abortion Act itself, even with the exceptions proposed in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would bring about a major change in the 1967 Act.
It may be helpful to the House in its consideration of the likely impact of this measure if I first remind noble Lords of some basic figures. Of the 183,798 abortions carried out on resident and non-resident women in England and Wales in 1988, 154, 784 or 84 per cent, were performed at less than 13 weeks. The number carried out after the 20th week was 3,113, or under 2 per cent, of the total. The number of terminations carried out after 24 weeks is small and has been falling for some years. In 1981, 142 terminations in this age range were carried out in England and Wales; by 1988 that figure had fallen to 22. In saying that. I recognise that my noble friend Lord McColl quoted a figure of 29. However, 22 is the figure that I have for England and Wales

1497
and I believe that there was also one such case in Scotland.
In the private sector, the department initially reached a voluntary agreement with the proprietors of the few nursing homes approved to carry out abortions after 20 weeks that they would not perform abortions after 24 weeks. In February 1986 that voluntary agreement was made a condition of approval.
Whatever view we may take about the ethical and moral aspects of abortion, I am sure we should all agree that any abortion that is to be performed should be carried out as early in pregnancy as possible. Our concern about the problem of late abortions in general led to a request by the Department of Health and Social Security that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists should undertake a review of late abortion practice. In its 1984 report, which the department funded, it drew particular attention to the incidence of late abortion among young people, and delays caused by inefficiencies in the administration of the abortion services. The department discussed the report with health authorities and encouraged the development of improved administrative systems—for example, the introduction of better referral and appointment procedures.
The scale of abortions must be a matter for regret, whatever stance one takes on the moral question. Because of our concern about the number of abortions and particularly late abortions, the Department of of Health decided to finance from central funds, family planning and counselling projects for young people in three separate health districts. Those three-year projects, in City and Hackney, South Sefton and Milton Keynes district health authorities, ended in March 1989 and are now being independently evaluated. The projects aim to reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancy among young people and encourage them to seek advice early if they suspect that they are pregnant. We hope that the projects will illuminate the issues and be helpful.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the studies to which she referred include the new cases of AIDS, which obviously make a difference to the situation? I imagine that they would do so.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I also imagine that they would do so. Perhaps I can confirm otherwise, if that should be necessary.
The House will also be aware that a working party of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which included representatives of other medical bodies and the Royal College of Midwives, produced a report in 1985 on fetal viability and clinical practice. That report recommended that the age at which a fetus is considered viable should be reduced from 28 to 24 weeks. A copy of the report was sent to each fellow and member of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in this country and they should take account of it in their clinical practice. In 1987 that recommendation was confirmed by the same
1498
group of organisations when they looked again at the 1985 report.
Perhaps I may conclude my observations by reminding your Lordships that the operation of the 1967 Act is monitored closely by the health departments and their chief medical and nursing officers, through their control of the private abortion sector and through the investigation of specific complaints, which I am glad to say are very rare. In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, reminded us, all notifications of abortions made to the chief medical officers of the health departments in England, Wales and Scotland are scrutinised by staff authorised by them to ensure that they do not indicate any contravention of the abortion law. That machinery is not revealing any abuses of the current Act.
The current 28-week presumption of viability has been with us for 60 years. A change to 24 weeks at this stage at which a fetus is presumed to be viable would be in accord with current medical advice and practice. The Government have previously indicated that in their view that proposition would be in line with the latest evidence on viability, and that remains our view. As I said earlier, abortion is an issue on which people sincerely hold differing views. This evening's debate has demonstrated once again the strength of the arguments on both sides of an issue on which the Government's position must be one of neutrality. I know that your Lordships' views and future debate on this important subject will be of great interest to many people.
9.59 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I shall be brief, as the hour is now late. The noble Baroness is to be congratulated on this comprehensive survey of the situation. Her reply has covered many of the points which I should wish to raise, or which should be raised, in the Committee stage of the Bill. However, I must say to some noble Lords that they cannot stand up and say that they will support the amendment to cast out the Bill and then ask for a Committee stage on the Floor of the House to follow.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, asked many questions that I am prepared to answer. However I hope that those who have taken part in the debate have read the report of the Select Committee, the evidence attached to the report and also the Bill. Whatever we decide about times and conditions has to be expressed in legislation in words. Unless we use words responsibly and understand what they mean, then we cannot put any suitable construction upon them.
Some noble Lords obviously did not listen to me when I said that up to the end of the 24th week we had not disturbed the conditions of the 1967 Act. What we have done in the Bill is to sort out the jumble of the 1967 Act and arrange the conditions in readable and meaningful order. However they are the same. The Bill therefore is not increasing the facility of abortion any way.

1499
However, where we are stiffening up the after-24 week cases, I ask the House to consider these words from page 2 of the Bill:
"that the termination of the pregnancy is essential".
"Essential" is the word. Surely "essential" means "must". What other word can we find? We have to have words or there has to be a bar. One must have words if one is to have exceptions. The provision continues, "to prevent serious damage". "Serious" is grave. One can toss words about to find which will give the most impact. But that is what the provision means: "essential to prevent serious damage".
Abortion on social grounds is excluded absolutely from the criteria for lawful abortion in over-24 week cases. Noble Lords will find that provision in subsection (2)(b). To that extent it is a tightening up of the provision on late abortions. That is mainly what the Bill provides for.
However, the point of the whole debate has been made by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. He finds it impossible to accept that when a Select Committee of your Lordships' House has reached a unanimous conclusion, and the unanimous conclusion is embodied in a Bill, your Lordships' House should deny that Bill the opportunity of going into Committee. That is what the House is asked to do. I deplore that move. It will destroy, I believe, the willingness of many of us to serve on Select Committees if we are going to be treated in this way. It does not matter what Members' views are; they should give the Bill a run so that we can at least deal with it in Committee. Moreover, has not the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, indicated that the work that we can do separately on this Bill will be invaluable for whoever has later to study the question?
I come to this conclusion. If the amendment is carried, the House is banning further debate on abortion until after the embryology Bill has left the House and gone to the House of Commons. We shall never have the mix of abortion and embryological research on that Bill. We are determined that we shall not have it. They must be separated. In those circumstances noble Lords may as well settle for an avenue of approach on the matter that will yield fruitful results.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Duke this question. He has not so far explained the position. Where does he expect to go if his amendment is carried? What will he do? I hear—I believe on good authority—that it is not his intention to try to intrude abortion into the embryological research Bill. Is that true or not? What has he in mind to do? We are entitled to know and not to shuffle around any longer. I believe that he should now rise to his feet and be perfectly frank with the House, and then we shall all know where we are.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down will he answer my question about the methods which will be used for the late abortions which will become possible under the Bill?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, no. If your Lordships give the Bill a Committee stage we will tell you.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down will he agree that when he and I served on the Select Committee, during which we had many a tussle, perhaps the final agreement of the committee was contributed to in some part by the fact that I withdrew from its membership?
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I should like to make three brief points. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, assured the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, Scotland adheres to the equivalent of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act because the Scottish gynaecologists and the Scottish Office have given that order to the Scottish doctors.
Secondly, I was saddened by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. It was full of thoughts that he appears to have about me and my Catholic friends. I speak entirely for myself in the debate. I happen to be a Catholic. We do not agree with many things that we are told to believe. It is a pluralistic society and in no way should I like to see some of our ideas forced upon this country. I hope that the noble Lord understands that. He looks as though the Inqusition is still in existence. Thank God, it was wound up three centuries ago. Its behaviour was appalling. I believe that any religious domination is appalling and I say so openly. I do not agree with everything that the Catholics say, but I believe that on the whole the Catholic religion has the best ideas. It is what I call the old faith and it is the faith that I try to practice. However, the idea that we are trying to force it on this House is polywash.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I should like to intervene briefly. I was attempting to say to the noble Duke simply that in respect of this issue there is a conflict of values and that he as a member of the minority wished to deny facilities to me and to a majority of people in this country who wish to have them. On the other hand, for our part we do not wish to impose anything that is repugnant to the conscience of the noble Duke or his co-religionists. That is precisely the point that I was making.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I only hope that some noble Lords can see that I am not trying to impose anything in this free, democratic country of ours. The idea that a minority of people—be they Catholic or Yorkshiremen, as I am—can impose their wishes on other people is totally wrong. I believe in the democracy of this country and in the majority vote.
I tabled the amendment for a simple reason. I do not believe that the right reverend Prelate, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lords, Lord Sefton and Lord Ennals, understand what the Bill is about. I do not believe that even the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, understands the Bill. It does not reduce the period for abortion from 28 to 24 weeks. I should like that and I said so in our debates before the Brightman Committee sat. I believe that it would

1501
be wonderful to reduce the period from 28 to 24 weeks. But the Bill opens up the period to 40 weeks—
Noble Lords: No, no.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I set that out at the beginning of my speech and it will appear in Hansard tomorrow. If your Lordships wish me to repeat it, the Bill states at subsection (2)(2A):
"No pregnancy may lawfully be terminated after the end of its twenty-fourth week … unless two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination of the pregnancy is essential to prevent serious damage to the mental or physical health of the pregnant woman".
Therefore, if the two medical practitioners say that there would be damage to the pregnant woman, the abortion could take place up to 40 weeks. That is what the Bill says. That is why I moved the amendment. I should like to see another abortion Bill brought in, but not this one because it does not say what your Lordships think it says.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the noble Duke has got it all wrong. I have emphasised that we have stiffened the conditions of lawful abortions after the end of the 24th week. That is what the clause says. I have gone over the wording and if the noble Duke wants to find better words to stiffen it up and reflect the meaning of what we think we have conveyed here, then let us give the Bill a Committee stage and let us examine it. That issue cannot be decided on Second Reading.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I agree that the noble Lord has stiffened the conditions up to 24 weeks but he has then opened the door from 28 to 40 weeks. That is what I am worried about. I would welcome a Bill in this House on abortion but not this one. The Bill is so full of matters which do not tally that I wish to test the opinion of the House on my amendment.
10.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the amendment to the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 61.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ashbourne, L. [Teller.]

Hemphill, L.

Blatch, B.

Holderness, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hylton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Jakobovits, L.

Coggan, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Coleraine, L.

Leicester, Bp.

Deedes, L.

Liverpool, E.

Elles, B.

Longford, E.

Fitt, L.

Lothian, M.

Gainsborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Grantchester, L.

Lytton, E.

Harvington, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

1502

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Milverton, L.

Reading, M.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Morris, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Norfolk, D. [Teller.]

St. Albans, Bp.

Northbourne, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Oxford and Asquith, E.

Sidmouth, V.

Parmoor, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Perth, E.

Stallard, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

NOT CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Belstead, L.

Lawrence, L.

Blyth, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Bradford, Bp.

Long, V.

Brightman, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Butterworth, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,L.

Monson, L.

Mountevans, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Nicol, B.

Carnock, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Carter, L.

Prys-Daviies, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rea, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Russell, E.

David, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Denham, L.

Seear, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Seebohm, L.

Ennals, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Serota, B.

Faithfull, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Flowers, L.

Sherfield, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stedman, B.

Haden-Guest, L.

Teviot, L.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Thurlow, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ullswater. V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Walpole, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wamock, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
United Medical and Dental Schools Bill [H.L]
Medway Tunnel Bill [H.L]
Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill [H.L.]
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [H.L]
Read a first time; passed through all remaining stages pro forma, and sent to the Commons.

City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill
Read a first time; passed through all remaining stages pro forma, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

St. George's Hill, Weybridge Estate Bill
Read a first time; passed through all remaining stages pro forma, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past ten o'clock.