Lords Sitting of 26 June 1989

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

Kensington High Street: Road Narrowing
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they approved the action of the Kensington and Chelsea council in reducing the width of the roadway in Kensington High Street.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the borough council sought the consent of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport under Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1985, which requires his approval for works affecting roads designated as part of the strategic network in London. Kensington High Street is not itself a designated road and it was not expected that the borough's experimental scheme would have any significant effect on designated roads in the area. My right honourable friend therefore had no reason to withhold his approval.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he say whether his right honourable friend will keep a close eye on the possibility—many people think the probability—of an increase in the already severe traffic congestion in the road now that it has been narrowed?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the scheme was approved as an experiment for 18 months. The borough will need to seek further approval under the designated road procedures if it wishes to make the scheme permanent.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, in all logic, by narrowing a road how can one improve the traffic flow? Before the application was made to the Secretary of State, from whom did the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea seek guidance? Who did it consult before taking this decision approved by the Secretary of State?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the borough consulted the police, the traffic control systems unit, fire and ambulance authorities, bus managers, adjoining local authorities and local amenity groups. I believe that its consultation could therefore be said to have been reasonably extensive.
On improving the traffic flow, it is for the borough to explain a scheme on its own road. It has to be said that Kensington High Street has a poor safety record; there have been a fairly large number of pedestrian accidents. That, of course, is regrettable. The scheme is intended to help improve the situation.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend issue a general directive that unless it is proven that pavements are grossly overcrowded, it is always better to widen the roads than to narrow the pavements? If the pavements are overcrowded with shoppers, that is of course an exception. Commercial vans are unloading at stores in these roads at some time during the day. If one reduces the flow to a single line of traffic there is a very little flexibility for such activities or for dealing with accidents when they occur. We see money constantly being spent on narrowing roads when space is badly needed to meet traffic demands.
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is for the borough to reconcile the needs of pedestrians in what is a busy shopping street with those of motor traffic. I understand that such works were accompanied by an adjustment of the traffic lights at either end. That was intended to alleviate the situation. It is an experimental scheme for 18 months. One will be better able to judge the situation at the end of that time.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this Question would be more appropriately addressed to the local press?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I explained in my original Answer, the Secretary of State had a role to play. Although it was not a designated road, it could have affected other designated roads in the area. Therefore, my right honourable friend's permission was sought.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I declare my interest as a ratepayer. Does the Minister take a little comfort from the fact that by and large the council does a jolly fine job? Do the considerations not only cover the traffic flow, but also how pedestrians cross those very busy streets? Some pedestrians are disabled.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend. It is primarily a matter for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. It is one of its roads. I would not hesitate to agree with my noble friend on the first part of his supplementary question.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister has twice stated that the decision is a matter for the borough council. Yet earlier he said that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave approval. In view of some of the questions that have been asked on pedestrian safety, is he satisfied? From where did he receive his advice on the matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, although this is a borough council road, my right honourable friend's permission was sought because of the effect the plan might have had on the designated roads in the area, although it is not in itself a designated road. That is why the department was asked for its approval. That is why our people looked into the matter.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the Secretary of State did not take into consideration any question of pedestrian safety? Is it argued that that is not his job and that he has merely to look at the neighbouring roads?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in this case the job of the Secretary of State is to look at the scheme's effect on any designated roads in the area. The issues of pedestrian safety, which is a very important one, and indeed of the road itself are for the borough council.

Salmonella: Testing of Poultry Flocks
2.42 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the result of testing for salmonella enteritidis, how many tests have been made, and what is the percentage of positive reactors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, under the Testing of Poultry Flocks Order 1989 each flock owner is responsible for carrying out routine monitoring for the presence of salmonella in poultry laying flocks. Information is not available therefore as to how many tests have been made. However, the reporting of salmonella isolations is required under the Zoonoses Order 1979. So far this year there have been 93 reports of salmonella enteritidis isolations in laying flocks and 29 flocks have been slaughtered.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which only partially answers the Question which I asked. Is my noble friend aware that the system of monitoring this testing seems very incomplete? Is she aware that the wish of the whole community is the elimination of this dangerous disease of salmonella enteritidis? Is she further aware that the existing system, a cloacal swab, is very ineffective, and that the right procedure is for the Ministry of Agriculture to make a serum which is effective against salmonella enteritidis and which should be universally applied to all poultry throughout the country? In that way we could eliminate the disease. Can my noble friend tell the House what is the prospect of the Ministry of Agriculture producing an effective serum?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government have adopted a comprehensive package of 19 measures, all but three of which have been implemented. The details of these are in the Library of the House. We are not the only country to suffer from this problem, but we have taken more measures to beat the problem than any other country. The Government accept the need for research into a serum against salmonella in poultry and eggs, and the Government announced on 21st March 1989 the provision of £1 million annually to meet the cost of new research into salmonella. A serum would indeed be a great gift to everybody.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what the symptoms are so that people recognise them in their own case and get off to the doctor?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think the noble Lord would know when he was infected by salmonella.
Lord Leatherland: That does not answer my question, my Lords. Can the Minister announce publicly now what the symptoms are, so that the population will know?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have had a great many helpful suggestions from all around me. You feel very ill, you are sick and other unpleasant things happen.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has suggested that the Government are introducing research. As I have suffered both from salmonella and botulism, can she assure me that the Government are going forward at a great rate to try to find out what causes both salmonella and botulism?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are already carrying out a great deal of research into the problem of salmonella; for example, the detection of infection in live birds, the effect of cooking on infected eggs and foods made from them, the growth of salmonella in eggs. Areas for future and further research are being urgently considered.
In relation to botulism, producers have to sample the product to ensure freedom from salmonella before it is fed to livestock, but there is no requirement to test for botulism toxin. That is because botulism toxin occurs in isolated pockets and would not be readily detected. Producers of ensiled poultry waste should ensure that the product is free from poultry carcasses.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, has the attention of the Ministry been drawn to the report of the Central Public Health Laboratory of a powerful new strain of salmonella in poultry said to be resistant to antibiotics in common use? It is called salmonella typhimurium, the incidence of which has increased quite markedly in recent months. Is any action being taken about this, and what is the nature of such action?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, research is continuing. We have put in the extra £1 million for extra research this year. I cannot say how it is progressing, but if I can find out I will write to the noblc Lord.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, which research institute has been given the £1 million'? Is it Bristol?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not know.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I understood the noble Baroness to say that it was the responsiblity of flock

479
owners to test their own flocks. If I am right in my understanding, can she tell us whether there is any monitoring of that, how many flock owners do it, how frequently they do it and whether they have to report their results to the Ministry of Agriculture, to veterinary services, or whether any other record is made of the results of the tests? If records are made, what percentage of flocks being tested by owners give a positive result?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if the noble Lord reads my original Answer he will find that I have answered his questions already.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, may I pursue the point about the sum of money that my noble friend has spoken about, the £1 million which has been allocated for research. If she cannot tell the House now which research station is to receive that sum to pursue that research, will she perhaps write to me, and also as to what is the programme of that research, and when we can expect a report on the progress being made?
Baroness Trumpington: Of course, my Lords.

Salmonella in Animal Feedingstuffs
2.50 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What research is the Ministry of Agriculture undertaking to discover the incidence of salmonella enteritidis in animal feedingstuffs, in particular in Ministry of Agriculture stockpiles of home grown grain, and what incidence of infection has been found.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, to ensure the quality of the raw materials in animal feed, processors of animal protein must register and must submit samples for testing. This year 127 inspections under these arrangements have led to 15 isolations of salmonella, with movement controls imposed in each case. Conditions for the import of processed animal protein have been strengthened. Codes of practice will soon be published covering the monitoring of raw materials used in compound feed, including intervention board stocks. My officials and the industry are working on a survey of feedingstuffs and raw materials of vegetable origin. All isolations of salmonella have to be reported; so far this year 31 have been notified in animal feedingstuffs.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting Answer. It is rather like the Bible story of the non-answer which offers an account of the minor prophets. However, I did not ask about animal protein inspections; I asked about inspections of intervention stocks of cereals. Is my noble friend aware that inevitably cereals are infested with rats and mice, and it is well known that rats and mice are carriers of salmonella? Can
480
she discover what inspections regularly take place in order to check the incidence of salmonella in such stocks? In due course, those stocks will be fed to poultry and other livestock in this country.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the responsiblity for vermin lies with the local authorities. If vermin are found, the onus is on the farmer or the owner of the intervention store to give notice of infestation to MAFF and the local authority in writing. Local authorities are required to make periodic checks, and we have introduced additional statutory measures to control vermin infestation of poultry houses and egg stores. I think that that will do for the moment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the Ministry is now satisfied with the drafting of the Processed Animal Protein Order 1989, No. 661, in view of defects alleged about the drafting of the order by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in its 19th Report?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the order requires that all processors of animal protein should register with MAFF by 13th June, and that they sample their product to ensure its freedom from salmonella before being fed to animals. If there is a mistake in the drafting of the order, I shall write giving details to the noble Lord.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I do not know whether I have a suspicious nature, but does the noble Baroness really believe that if people find mice in their stores they will rush off and tell the authorities? I should think that that will be the last thing that they will do, but instead will pretend that they have not seen the mice. Is such a provision good enough to ensure that the matter is followed up?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if the noble Baroness reads the 19 regulations—copies of which have been placed in the Library—she will see that we have taken an enormous amount of trouble to try to put matters in order so that we can reduce the salmonella problem. I was fascinated to hear that when she sees mice she pretends that they are not there. I most certainly do not.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, what is the Government's view of the desirability of feeding poultry waste to poultry?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the materials have been used for many years, and their use is controlled by legislation in two ways. First, the Waste Food Order 1973 prohibits the feeding to livestock and poultry of waste food unless it has first been processed by means of plant or equipment the operation of which is licensed. Secondly, it is controlled by the Processed Animal Protein Order 1989 as I have just described.
Lord Walston: My Lords, reverting to the original Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, can the noble Baroness give an assurance that she and her department are completely satisfied that

481
there is no risk of the infection of livestock—poultry or otherwise—by the ingestion of grain from intervention stores? Further, can she assure us that any risk which may exist will be caught before the grain is incorporated into feedstuffs?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, of course we are not satisfied and are always aware that there is room for improvement. We have made many new regulations, codes of practice and orders as quickly as possible in order to overcome the various problems. I repeat the fact that we have done a great deal more than any other country to try to clear up the problems of salmonella and vermin.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that her Answer to this part of my Question is far from satisfactory? Will she take back this message to members of the Ministry of Agriculture? It is essential to have regular inspections of intervention grain stores and regular testing in order to ensure that they contain no source of salmonella.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall certainly convey that message to my right honourable friend.
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, do we have sufficient control of imports? I am sure that many cases of salmonella arise from imported foodstuffs and animal foodstuffs. I believe that salmonella and diseases of that type live in certain areas—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, is it the case that salmonella and other diseases inhabit certain areas, and that in those areas we gradually obtain immunity to the disease? However, in other areas we do not have freedom from the disease. What controls exist in that connection?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my noble friend's question referred to the first Question, to which I have replied. We are systematically sampling imports of eggs and testing for salmonella infection. The commission has tabled proposals for the control of a wide range of zoonoses, including salmonella, in animals and problems of animal origin. We welcome the proposals, and we shall be working to build on that basis an effective Community-wide solution as soon as possible.

Election Results and Government Policies
2.58 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the results of the elections which took place on 15th June, they will reconsider some of the policies which they are pursuing.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, no.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that most Members of the House will be surprised by the terseness of that reply, bearing in mind the serious erosion caused by the results of the European elections and the two by-elections on 15th June to the point of the Government being almost obliterated in Scotland and Wales? Does that not indicate to the noble Lord, as has been reinforced by subsequent opinion polls, that there is serious public concern about the stupid intentions of the Government to carry on with the privatisations of water and electricity and the reorganisation of the National Health Service? Is the Leader of the House aware that the answer no is not good enough? Government support has been reduced to three out of 10 people in the United Kingdom, nearly an alltime low—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the European elections on 15th June were to elect members of the European Parliament. In the general election in 1987 the Government were re-elected, and the Government will pursue policies for which they then received a mandate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the European election had nothing whatever to do with the policy of privatisation inside this country and that, as regards the two by-elections, in one seat which the Labour Party already held the majority went slightly up and in the other went slightly down? What conclusions does my noble friend draw from that?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the same conclusions as, I believe, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter draws; namely, that it is not appropriate to use the European parliamentary election in order to ask general questions on domestic policy.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, when the Minister is reviewing the European election results, will he keep in mind that more than 21 per cent. of the people voted for minority parties in that election and have no representation whatever in the European Parliament? Is it not a disgrace that this country alone among all the European nations does not observe proportional representation, which would enable minority groups to have some voice in the European Parliament?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I believe that the answer to that question must be the same Answer that I originally gave to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the real lesson to be learned that,
"We are all of us dreadfully keen
To be thought of as greener than green.
But, when all's done and said,
Tory's blue, Labour's red
And the rest of us are nowhere to be seen."
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I take on board the experience and wisdom of my noble and learned friend.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the particularly important summit conference presently taking place in Madrid, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House give an assurance that a Statement will be made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons when she returns and that that will be repeated in this House?
Furthermore, does the noble Lord agree with his right honourable friend the Prime Minister when she said that the reason that the Conservative vote was so low in the European elections in this country was that it was a nice, long, hot day? Is it the intention of the party opposite in future to call for general elections in cold weather?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am bound to say that the last three elections have been in the middle of the summer and we have not done too badly. However, I give the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition an assurance that there will undoubtedly be an opportunity for your Lordships to discuss those European matters following the council meeting in Madrid.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the heart of the Leader of the House not touched by the fact that the Tories in Scotland do not have one single representative in Europe? In spite of everything, there are quite a few of them. Does that not show not only a lack of any attempt at democracy, but a curious lack of belief in the noble Lord's own party, and indeed a curious obliviousness to the right of the Scots to have the various opinions in Scotland deployed in Europe? Is not now the case for electoral reform absolutely overwhelming?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord talks of the people of Scotland having their case deployed in Europe. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that in the European Community the United Kingdom since the last Euro election has taken a leading part in securing a substantial reform of Community finance and making real progress towards the completion of the single market. I believe that we have a record which stands up against any other country as regards complying with Community directives and, arguably, we have also stood by the British interests. I hope that those representing the people of Scotland in the European Parliament will do likewise.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, just because noble Lords on the Labour Benches make policy cartwheels in pursuit of a recovery of their popularity vote, is there any reason why the Government should follow their example?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, indeed, there is no reason and therefore I agree with my noble friend's question.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House tell us what, in his opinion, was to blame for the Tory rout on 15th June?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, fewer supporters of the Conservative Party went to the poll than we might have hoped. However, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, I believe that we have been following the right policies and that in the end they will prevail.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the efforts of his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the financial field. Is he aware that the net result has been, as the Prime Minister has now revealed in another place, that this country will bear a burden of £2 billion net of all receipts during the forthcoming year? If that is financial control, I should be glad to receive further information from the noble Lord on that subject taken as a whole.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the fact is that at Fountainebleu my right honourable friend the Prime Minister secured a lasting and equitable arrangement as regards the contribution from this country to the Community budget. Had it not been for that, the figure quoted by the noble Lord would have been much higher.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that at the time of the European election, the forms for the poll tax were being sent out? Could it not be that Tory supporters are worried not only about the administrative nightmare of the poll tax but also that they will have to pay a lot more than they were led to believe by a Tory Government? Is it not now the case that, in seats like Reading, Bath, Bristol, Exeter and Southampton, the Labour Party is now rampant and will win those seats necessary to form a new government?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, in managing to raise the issue of proportional representation while discussing this Question is only exceeded by my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who manages to raise the issue of community charge.

Extradition Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate enactments relating to extradition under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 and the extradition Acts 1870 to 1935, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Electricity Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords,

485
I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 93 agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Nuclear liabilities: financial assistance]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 233K:
Page 117, line 26, at end insert—
("(d) the burying of electric lines to be installed or kept installed in areas of outstanding natural beauty or National Parks designated by the Countryside Commission under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.").
The noble Lord said: I can be very brief on this amendment. As it makes clear, it concerns the burying of electricity lines to be installed in areas of outstanding natural beauty. It could well be argued, as I am sure the noble Baroness will when she responds, that this amendment is in the wrong place. However, it has been put there because there seems to be no other place where a grant can be made by the Secretary of State for such purpose. Therefore, in putting forward an amendment of this sort, I should like to obtain from the Government their views on two matters. Do they agree that this is a desirable objective? If so, and if they feel that the amendment is in the wrong place, can they suggest where it might be more appropriately included in the Bill so as to attain the objective in mind? I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I am sure we all agree that it is better if possible for overhead lines to be placed underground, if that is not a contradiction in terms. So that Members of the Committee will understand exactly what I mean, some years ago I had experience of this matter and was involved in a good deal of controversy on behalf of people with whom I had great sympathy who wanted enormous sums of public money spent on putting the supergrid underground. If we can remove these vast overhead lines and the tremendous pylons which support them so that they do not spoil places of natural beauty, then that will of course be a great help to the environment. But we have to keep a sense of proportion and realise that it can be enormously expensive. Moreover, in some of the national parks where there are rock formations it becomes even more expensive and physically more difficult. Therefore, although naturally we have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I assume and hope that this is a probing amendment rather than one which he insists should be applied in every case.
Lord Peston: I should like to add a few words in support of the amendment. As I read it, this amendment would enable the Secretary of State to make grants to this end. The amendment certainly does not say that all such lines should be placed underground, merely that grants should be available
486
so that where possible and reasonable to do so that should be done.
I slightly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who is not convinced that his amendment should come at this point in the Bill. My own view is that since in Schedule 12 we are discussing the expenditure of enormous sums of money for nuclear decommissioning, and so on, which at least to some degree must be thought of as having an environmental aspect, surely this is an appropriate place to raise such considerations. I am entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in recognising how much money would be involved but, in a sense, that is placed in context by the vast amounts of money we are about to spend on decommissioning.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is also right—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—that this is an objective that the Government should bear in mind. I have to say that, despite my appreciation of modern art, I do not find these lines particularly attractive. As regards the living environment, undergrounding is an objective which one would very much like the Government to take into account. The amendment does not commit the Government to that objective; neither does it compel them to spend these vast sums of money. The amendment proposes that the Government should recognise, at least to some degree, the desirability of this particular objective. Therefore, on those grounds I believe that the amendment is worth a modicum of support.
Baroness Hooper: I accept that the sight of electricity lines above the ground can be unattractive. Indeed, a great deal is already being done to go underground where practicable and possible. I have seen some excellent examples provided by the Yorkshire board in this respect.
There are some difficulties which must be taken into account, and my noble friend Lord Renton mentioned some of them. The cost of underground cable ranges from one and a half to 18 times as much as overhead lines, depending on voltage. It also takes longer to carry out the necessary work; and it is correspondingly more expensive to locate and rectify any subsequent faults on underground cables. In some areas—in particular agricultural areas —placing cables underground is unsatisfactory since cables are at risk of being ploughed up.
There are two further points I wish to make. Under the new electricity regulations, anyone who wishes to install an overhead line may be required to make an environmental statement about the impact of it on the countryside. The Secretary of State will need to take any such statement into account when deciding whether or not to grant a consent to the placement above ground of any electric line, other than a low voltage service line. Further, paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 requires any licence holder or any person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity to have regard to the amenity provisions of that paragraph in formulating or considering any proposal for the installation of an electric line, whether above or below ground. This paragraph also applies to the Secretary of State when considering an application for an overhead line consent under Clause 36.

487
I appreciate that the amendment deals with grants, but I felt that it was important to reiterate the fact that we are taking this matter seriously. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the amendment does not sit comfortably in Schedule 12. In the context of the amendment made by my noble friend Lord Norrie, and indeed other amendments relating to the environment which were made at earlier stages in our Committee proceedings, I am in any event looking again at the question of undergrounding as well as all the other matters raised. I hope the noble Lord will accept that I will certainly take into account his amendment in that overall consideration.
Lord Ezra: I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation, and also for the assurance that she is looking at this whole question of undergrounding, particularly in regard to areas of outstanding beauty. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 234:
Page 118, line 47, at end insert—
("(5) No grants, loans or guarantees shall be made in relation to qualifying expenses under this section if incurred in connection with nuclear power stations commissioned after the enactment of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: In discussing this amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, with the permission of the Committee I shall raise a number of general questions concerning nuclear liabilities and related financial assistance. It would be useful if the Minister could answer these questions in one reply rather than continually having them raised throughout the afternoon.
Having said that, I must make a point that is only partly political; namely, nothing brings home to this Chamber more clearly the foolhardiness of placing the nuclear industry in the private sector than this question of nuclear liabilities. The more one examines the problems that arise with decomissioning and related matters the more one asks about the nature of the public interest and providing financial support. It seems to me, at least, that to almost any dispassionate person studying this subject the nuclear power industry should simply not be in the private sector. Separate from the issue of general privatisation which we are not debating now, when confronted with these problems it is impossible not to see that the obvious answer is to leave this industry in the public sector, at least for the time being. That is my first general comment, which I insist is not just a political comment but one that could well be made by those who favour privatisation.
On the subject in general, essentially the amendment revolves around the question of what is in the national interest. After all, if we are to use public funds our criterion must be to use them in the national interest. I am sure that noble Lords opposite, given their present economic policies, do not believe in using public funds to support private enterprise. They have set all their philosophy against
488
that. Therefore, the only argument is that these loans, grants and guarantees arise because of some concern with the public interest.
What is that public interest? One argument—and I speculate on these matters because they are difficult—is that the existing power stations, once they cease to be economically viable, give rise to problems of storage and the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. They give rise to problems of radioactive waste and, more generally, problems of decommissioning. All those matters relate to existing power stations as a public matter because those power stations are in the public sector. That led my noble friend Lord Williams and I to this amendment.
However, even there one reflects on whether that is entirely a valid argument, because one could at least argue that these matters could be included in the sale price in the first place and that no issue of public responsibility should arise later because it should arise ad initia. Can the noble Baroness assure us that these costs will not be double counted and that industry will not be sold net of decommissioning cost and then obligingly come to the Government and ask for more money once it is decommissioning? In other words, if one buys a power station its value must be net of what it will eventually cost to decommission. One way of arguing is to say that that is how the industry will be privatised and therefore that none of the other issues will arise. Can we be reassured that if that is already taken into account in the sale price it will not arise a second time?
The schedule concerns grants, loans and guarantees. To the best of my ability I have thought through the case for grants, and I can see it. I should like to know what is the nature of the case for loans and guarantees. Given that the privatised industry will have access to the free capital market, why does it need loans from the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury? Why cannot it get its own loans? Why does it need guarantees? Why cannot the industry itself provide the appropriate collateral? What is there about this activity that justifies guarantees and loans? This is not the argument about grants. I can see the argument about grants because the industry will be stuck with certain problems for which it was not fully compensated when it was privatised in the first place. That is why grants may be appropriate. I should like to know about those three headings. What do the Government think at the present time the appropriate mixture of grants, loans and guarantees is likely to be?
Can the noble Baroness tell us what sums of money are involved? What is the public purse letting itself in for with regard to this financial assistance? What is the scale of this operation? I am not a technical expert on nuclear plant generation. I am certainly not a technical expert on any of these matters of storage, reprocessing and decommissioning. However, the documents that have been sent to me quote large sums for these costs. They talk of sums equal to one-tenth and one-fifth of the building cost of a power station. They talk of sums of £100 million and even £200 million for decommissioning. I do not suggest for one moment that there is any way of avoiding spending large sums of money, but to pass

489
into law a commitment to financial assistance—I shall come back in just a moment to the word "commitment"—without knowing quite how much is a little worrying.
I use the word "commitment", but I notice that throughout the schedule the word "may" occurs rather than any other word. If I were in the nuclear industry I would like to know what the word "may" means. "May" normally means "may" or "may not". In what sense is the Secretary of State liable to give assistance? In what sense is the Secretary of State obliged to give assistance? In what sense is this other than a blanket permission which will be negotiated in due course but without any full commitment? Is the word "may" correct, and does it mean "may" meaning "may not"?
Can the noble Baroness tell us the present state of knowledge of these matters? Do we know how to carry out any of the activities referred to in the first paragraph of the schedule? Have we had much success yet in decommissioning? I think I am right in saying—I always emphasise that I am not an expert—that we have not yet decommissioned a power station in this country. If we have done so—I speak as an ignoramus—I should like to know about it. The only thing that I can think of more difficult than building a nuclear power station is decommissioning one. What are we letting ourselves in for in this respect? Are we at present financing research on these matters so that when the time comes we will be able to do the job that people have in mind? As noble Lords will be aware, I do not speak on these matters as someone who is against nuclear power. That is not my point. I speak as someone who is in favour of using resources efficiently and of knowing the answers to key economic questions.
I have two final questions which are at least worth considering. When the original Magnox stations were built not a great deal of thought was given to such problems as decommissioning and so on. Those were exciting and experimental days. It seemed a good idea to start to be in this business and to build these stations. I add that I do not think that that was a mistake, but even a long time eventually comes round. Economists, because of their emphasis on discounting the future, tend to regard anything longer than about 10 years as never. However, I am afraid that 10 years go by, 20 years go by and 30 years go by and eventually chickens come home to roost.
I am aware that when we built the original stations we were not thinking of the problems that arise with decommissioning, but I also understand—and I hope for reassurance on this point—that now when we plan our stations we take the problems of decommissioning into account. I am led to believe that that is true for Sizewell. Can I be assured that any future power station construction will take account not only of the technical side of decommissioning but also of its cost, and that that will be part of the decision-making mechanism?
My final question is a typically boring economist's one. Is there any way of answering the question—I
490
put it no more strongly than that—of whether the nuclear stations already in existence have had a contribution made to their decommissioning costs by people who have bought their electricity from them over the years? On the economic side the price of electricity ought, strictly speaking, already to have taken that into account. It is a genuine capital cost, even though it is discounted for the future, and ought to have been included in the price. If that has already been taken into account it would be quite inappropriate for the Exchequer to have to find that sum of money a second time because in some sense it has already been found. I agree that this is a rather tricky matter. But speaking as an economist who is always intrigued by questions of this kind, I should at least like some analysis and discussion of the question of whether these costs have already been met.
My questions have covered a broad field. This has been not exactly a Second Reading debate but a broad debate on the general subject. I look forward to some comments and answers.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Lord has raised a number of wide questions on this amendment. I seek to follow him to a certain extent, though without repeating the debate we had the other day on the desirability of separating altogether the nuclear section of the industry. In this schedule there is the clearest possible admission on the part of the Government that nuclear power is indeed very different and deserves and requires very different treatment. It requires treatment of a kind which the Government would never contemplate handing out to any other section of the industry.
Let us consider the wording of the schedule. The Secretary of State is empowered to make either grants or loans of such amounts as he thinks fit under certain very broad headings of expenditure including the storage of fuel, the handling of waste and the decommissioning of a nuclear station. As I understand it, a decommissioning has not yet taken place although there is the commencement of putting one nuclear station into cold storage—if that is the correct term to use.
We have no idea how much that expenditure will be. The schedule states that the amount,
"shall not exceed £1,000 million or such greater sum, not exceeding £2,500 million, as the Secretary of State may by order specify".
Even in these days those sums are fairly considerable. I wonder what those who are now Conservative Ministers would have said in the past if such liabilities had been imposed upon the taxpayer without even providing for a cursory reference to Parliament. I have never found the negative procedure to be anywhere near remotely satisfactory. In another place I may have been tempted to use stronger phraseology.
I conclude with two questions for the Government. First, I should like to know who within the electricity supply industry has such confidence in putting the nuclear stations into the same bracket as others and then to one side, to an extent, for special treatment? Such a process seems to me to be blowing hot and cold in a very unacceptable way.

491
Secondly, I should particularly like to know—and I think we are entitled to ask this question—who, with any authority in this immensely important industry, is more than content in the matter and is actually encouraging and supporting the Government in their present proposals? I shall be most interested to hear the answer to that question. Further, have the Government any evidence to suggest that potential investors in the generating section of the industry, which will include the nuclear aspect, are in any way encouraged by the proposals which the Government are putting forward?
The industry is a complicated and very difficult one. Therefore, it is vitally important to recognise that adding to its problems at a time of immense change could be very unwise and something which the Government may ultimately greatly regret.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: During earlier exchanges in Committee both sides have agreed that safety should be one of the principal responsibilities of the Secretary of State and of the various electricity authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, and my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil have been clear that we should insist upon safety. The twelfth schedule goes to the heart of the whole question of safety. I should perhaps remind Members of the Committee that among the threats to safety which have given rise to public anxiety both at home and abroad are the reprocessing of nuclear fuel and the treatment, storage or disposal of radioactive waste.
As has been rightly said, we have not yet had the decommissioning of a nuclear power station. I hope that it will not seem too self-assertive if again I remind Members of the Committee that when we embarked on this concept more than 30 years ago we did not know how long a reactor core would last. That was the most expensive part of the equipment. Further, we did not know how long the ancillary machinery would last; we had to guess. It is some reassurance to those who committed themselves to nuclear generation those many years ago that so far all fears expressed at that time about the length of time which the plant would last have been unjustified. Windscale was opened in 1956 and other nuclear power stations have been opened in stages since then. However, I do not think that one has been opened now for at least 10 years. It is some satisfaction to find that there has so far been no decommissioning. Nevertheless, we must face the possibility that there may be such decommissioning in the future. I say that because nothing is everlasting, alas, in this field.
It is right to make the point that the nuclear power stations so far built, the radioactive waste created and so on, have all resulted from the expenditure of public money. If the expenditure of that public money has given rise to anxiety about safety, it is surely reasonable—it would be a form of insurance for the public—that we should have further public money spent in order to prevent accidents of any kind occurring under the three headings in the future. If we are to have nothing like Schedule 12 in the Bill, that would be a very serious omission. Indeed,
492
we could rightly be accused of failing to observe the safety standards which are required.
As I understand it, because the Opposition did not vote on the matter—although they indicated on the Marshalled List that they would perhaps vote against Clause 93 and Schedule 12—I assume that they accept basically what is in the twelfth schedule but that they want any power station built or decommissioned in the future to be excluded from those benefits. Would that really be a wise exception to make? Would the public be happy about that? After all, we are legislating now, we hope, for a great many years to come. I should have thought that it could cause some real anxiety. I also find it illogical and inconsistent—if I may follow the phrase used by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil just now, although he used it in another sense—and we should not blow hot and cold in this matter; we should not say, "Yes, it is all right for anything arising out of what has been done in the past. Oh, but in the future we should leave it to chance, even if the Secretary of State is convinced that public money is needed to make safe the decommissioning of a power station. No, we must not let him have that". There is no logic in that.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My noble friend's points are sound when taken separately, but he did not face up to the one point made by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I agree that power in these matters should be given to the Secretary of State to meet the eventualities to which my noble friend referred, but I find it difficult to accept that £1,000 million—it can go up to twice that amount—should be available to a Secretary of State without Parliament even having a chance to give a nod or a wink in connection with it.
While normally one wants to give powers to Ministers to enable them to make vital decisions quickly, when it gets to the point of spending that amount of money, bearing in mind the stringencies that we have to face in other fields, I feel that Parliament should in some way, as I said, give a nod and a wink—no more than that—to the Secretary of State when he makes his decision.
Lord Trafford: In answer to the point just made, I believe that it is fair to draw my noble friend's attention to paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 12 where it is clear that there must be a resolution of the other place. I believe that the nod and a wink that he was requesting is probably taken care of.
I do not wish to reopen the question of the privatisation, or otherwise, of nuclear power which we debated last week, interesting though that subject may be. I accept entirely all the comments about safety made by my noble friend Lord Renton. Safety is a matter for the general public. It is not a matter of whether the installation happens to be in the public or the private sector, now or in the future. It is the preservation of the safety of the public with which we are concerned.
However, having made the decision which has been made, and it having been approved in both places on a vote, about moving nuclear installations into the private sector, that leads to certain inevitable

493
consequences. One of them relates to maintaining the diversity of supply, which I would regard as important with regard to the future of the electricity industry as a whole. At the moment, of the non-fossil fuel generating sources, nuclear is by far the most mature of the technologies.
Although there have been anxieties, and I am sure there always will be anxieties expressed about such installations, their safety record over the decades since they were introduced has been remarkable both in Europe and here, despite the Three Mile Island business in the United States. One can never entirely rule out the possibility of human error. In so far as one understands what happened in Chernobyl, it appears to have been human error to a large extent that led to that incident. Again we are assured, and I accept the assurance, that it was a design that would never have been approved or accepted in Western Europe or this country.
I shall return to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. As I said, I cannot believe that safety should apply only to something in the public sector, and therefore, once the decision is made to put it in the private sector, public safety must be ensured subsequently. I shall not develop further the argument eloquently put forward by my noble friend.
There are two consequences which, in a sense, answer the questions asked by the noble Lord. For example, it is clear that the total costs of decommissioning are not known. One can make "guestimates" but not direct estimates. That, I assume, will answer his question as to whether decommissioning costs are taken into account in the current price of electricity. How can they be if those figures are not, and cannot be, known?
It is a technology which is constantly developing. Although there are many people in this country, and of course around the rest of the world, who believe that they know how decommissioning should take place, even the experts are the first to say, "We cannot be certain that the cost of carrying out a particular decommissioning, or part of a decommissioning, exercise might not be greater than we have anticipated".
On all those grounds, it would seem reasonable to keep Schedule 12 as it stands and to reject the amendment. I make two more points. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked why the word "may" was used. I imagine that "may" is a word that allows the Secretary of State, but does not oblige him. Clearly, no Secretary of State likes to dish out £2.5 billion, £2 billion or £1 billion unless he has to. Therefore one does not put an obligation upon him, one allows him so to do, subject, as I say, to paragraph 4(2) which states:
"No order shall be made under this paragraph unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons".
It is not possible, because the costs cannot be known, that there would be, so to speak, double accounting of that figure. It does not seem reasonable. It would in one sense be easily spotted.
Finally, the noble Lord asked about insurance. The Nuclear Installations Act 1965 requires the operator to sustain insurance up to £20 million.
494
After that, there is an obligation under that Act, which I presume—I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will tell us whether that is so—falls on the public purse. The answers to many of the questions asked by the noble Lord are self-evident. The safety problem has been discussed and it seems to me that the amendment does not stand up to detailed investigation.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I cannot help feeling that the schedule is needed in some form. I read it as a type of open-ended commitment to ensure that there is provision in the future for a sum which is up to so much at the moment but which I am sure that Parliament will have to change as matters go along.
I should like to ask whether, when the nuclear power station company is floated, there will be provision in its flotation documents to take account of the prospect of government help. I am clear that we must have nuclear power. I believe in it. Its safety rcord is exceptional. How on earth anyone will get people to subscribe to shares in a company or companies owning stations which have those indefinite anxieties far away in the future, I do not know.
We must not reopen the debate we had the other day. The only pity about that debate was that the vote was taken too late for those whom I believe to be wise to succeed. Anyhow, that issue is closed and we cannot go over it.
I do not see—perhaps we shall be told—how investors' funds for those future nuclear power stations will be raised unless it is made clear to the investors what degree of help will be available for the decommissioning. I shall take an example from another side of the energy industry. All the oil companies have for years been making provision for the dismantling and removal of their platforms. It is a regular thing. We have been doing it for at least the past 10 years. The provision for decommissioning in that case is familiar to those of us involved in the oil industry. With regard to the nuclear industry, it is uncertain. I hope that we shall hear from the Government to what extent, and how, the proposed flotations will take account of that fact. The Government are right to make provision, but I should like to know how investors will be assured of how much or how little the companies they invest in will be protected by it.
Baroness Hooper: Last week we debated the Government's proposals for ensuring the future of nuclear power in the private sector. As has been said, on a Division on the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and others, we succeeded in having your Lordships confirm support for our proposals. Clause 93 and Schedule 12 provide the final plank in the proposals, but I am happy to respond to the general remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, because this is a very important topic.
Nuclear power has costs which extend, as we all recognise, for a considerable time after the electricity has been generated. Spent fuel is reprocessed, the resulting wastes need to be treated and ultimately disposed of and nuclear plant has to be

495
decommissioned. Some of these costs are very long term. High level vitrified waste has to be stored for up to 50 years before it can be disposed of. The final decommissioning of nuclear power stations may well not take place for up to 100 years after the station has closed. In some areas, it is not yet possible to identify firmly what the cost will be. For example, the cost of disposing of nuclear waste will depend on the site for a repository, on which no final decision has yet been taken. All those costs are subject, quite rightly, to stringent health and safety and environmental regulation. The requirements of this regime have become more stringent over time, and it is clearly not possible to rule out the chance that there may be further changes to the regime over the long periods involved.
To date, these uncertainties have meant that provision of nuclear services and the supply of nuclear electricity have been governed by a cost plus mentality. As we all know, the effect is that there has been little incentive to keep under control those costs which management can influence.
Following extensive discussions with the electricity industry and BNFL, we have concluded that it is possible to distinguish between those areas which are capable of control and those areas which are so uncertain that some degree of assurance and support is needed. Our proposals in Clause 93 and Schedule 12 are targeted at these areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked what provision had been made to date. At present, electricity customers are charged in their electricity prices the best estimates, at the time, of future costs relating to this electricity supply. This is only right, and we propose that it should continue after privatisation. But these prices clearly cannot take into account unforeseen future cost increases. If these costs increase later, for example as a result of what I quoted, changes to safety and environmental regulation, the costs inevitably fall to be met by the industry. So long as the industry remains in the public sector, this has meant that the Government ultimately stand behind it in respect of all such unforeseen cost increases. We believe that after privatisation it would be unreasonable for the Government to stand aside entirely from such a burden. Clause 93 therefore permits the Government to contribute to costs associated with reprocessing, waste treatment and disposal, and decommissioning of nuclear plant.
Our aim, as Ministers made clear during consideration of the Bill in another place, is to target government assistance in a selective way, dealing with unforeseen and uncontrollable cost increases, but leaving management in National Power, the Scottish nuclear company and BNFL, with adequate incentives to keep down those costs which are subject to management control.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, also asked what "may" meant. Although my noble friend Lord Trafford has responded adequately, I would say yes, it does give a permissive power. However, as I said in Committee a week ago, we intend at Report stage to table amendments designed to reinforce this message by permitting the Government to commit
496
themselves contractually to meet their share of such unforeseen costs. I emphasise that this does not represent an extension to the policy announced in another place, simply a strengthening of the Government's commitment to it.
Electricity customers will continue, as at present, to pay the best estimate of such costs at the time they get their electricity. If the costs rise subsequently because, for example, of changes to the safety or environmental regime, or in areas where the costs are genuinely unknown, the Government will contribute to the costs when they arise.
We are confident that by agreeing to contribute to unforeseen and uncontrollable cost increases in this way, it is possible to move to a contractual regime which provides proper incentives for BNFL and the nuclear operators to operate efficiently and safely and to keep costs under control. Negotiations are taking place at present between BNFL and the nuclear operators to conclude contracts for nuclear fuel cycle services which will be essentially fixed price, except where costs go up for reasons of regulatory change. In these latter areas, cost increases will be shared between the Government, the nuclear operators and BNFL.
By these means we shall be bringing proper commercial pressures for the first time into major areas of nuclear activity. And by paying particular regard to the reasons why nuclear costs go up, and spreading the financial risk associated with such cost increases, we shall be providing the assurance needed to ensure that nuclear power can operate efficiently and profitably in the private sector, while maintaining the levels of safety and security which have applied to date, and which we all certainly recognise as being of the utmost importance.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, further asked me to quantify these unanticipated costs. I have to say that it is quite impossible to do so because the costs are, by definition, unanticipated. The Government will, however, only pay a part of any increase above the level provided for, not the full cost, and only if the increase is unforeseen.
I turn to paragraph 4 of Schedule 12 which will place financial limits on the provisions and which has been referred to—the £1,000 million, which may be increased by order. I point out to my noble friend Lord Peyton that the order must be subject to the affirmative procedure. The amount may be raised to £2,500 million. Anything over and above that would require primary legislation, but this will ensure that Parliament has an opportunity from time to time to scrutinise the Government's policy and payments made under the provision. In the event that the provisions appear likely to be insufficient, the Government will return to Parliament to seek an increase. Of course, we do not anticipate an increase for many years to come, if ever.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, also asked for an example of a decommissioning to date. I can only quote the example of Berkeley, one of the first Magnox stations to be closed in March this year, when Lord Marshall said that adequate provision had been made to meet decommissioning and nuclear fuel cycle cost.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Will the Minister give way? I rise to intervene because in the very early stages I helped to manufacture some of the turbine parts for Berkeley power station. Can the Minister indicate, in regard to the decommissioning and closure of a nuclear power station, that the nuclear power is not the whole of the station? Is it not true that a large part of the station consists of conventional turbines and rotors, and only the heat comes from the nuclear part? Is it not possible with a large percentage of the bigger stations to have half the plant demolished anyway without safety risks to anybody? Has that factor been taken into account? Whether a turbine is set at 100, 250, 350 or 500 megawatts, the whole of the turbine section can be removed without any threat to safety whatever. I hope that when the Government decide what to make available that exercise will be looped in.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The noble Lord speaks from a considerable knowledge of this subject. Nevertheless, the reference which I made to Berkeley shows that adequate provision has been made in advance, according to the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I wish to clear up that point. Are we to understand that the provision for decommissioning Berkeley has already been covered by the CEGB's electricity charges?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, that is my understanding. I shall now move on to respond to the question which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked me as regards whether double counting would apply if grants are provided. The answer is "no". The Government will make their policy on the use of grants clear in the prospectus when National Power is sold. The shares will be priced against the background of this policy; there will therefore be no double counting.
As regards the use of guarantees and loans as well as grants, I should say that we anticipate that grants will be the major means of support. However, there may be occasions when loans and guarantees are appropriate—for instance, if there is a cash flow problem rather than a need for additional expenditure. This provision provides the necessary flexibility.
My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked who in the industry supported this policy. I can say that in a speech to National Power managers on 25th January, Mr. John Baker, the chief executive designate of National Power, said that the Government have recognised the special needs of privatising nuclear power by the inclusion of specific provisions in the Bill for the nuclear levy, and assistance with the nuclear fuel cycle costs. Only recently the CEGB put in its application for the fourth PWR in the family of four following the original Sizewell PWR. Surely this must show confidence in the future.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My noble friend has not, with respect, answered my question. Mr. Baker and others within the industry must perforce in the
498
positions they occupy do their best to follow the line being laid down by the Government and confirmed by Parliament. I asked my noble friend whether there was anyone of stature within the industry who positively counselled the line now being taken by the Government of including nuclear with conventional generation.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to my noble friend for clarifying what he meant. I responded by quoting a leading figure from the industry. As I said in relation to the PWR applications, I believe the fact that the industry is pursuing that policy shows confidence and enthusiasm for the future.
My noble friend Lord Trafford raised a point about nuclear insurance. That, of course, will not change. We have treaty obligations with regard to nuclear insurance which mean that the company is required to bear the liability up to £20 million while between £20 million and the value of 200 million special drawing rights—currently around £250 million—liability falls to the Government, as it does in other countries which are signatories to the treaty. Beyond that amount, it is for Parliament to decide who should bear the cost.
I now turn to Amendment No. 234 which is before us. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, as he said, is seeking to restrict the payment of grants or the making of loans or guarantees to activities resulting from the operation of nuclear stations commissioned before Royal Assent to this Bill.
The first PWR will not be commissioned until the mid-1990s. It is then likely to operate for 40 years. PWR fuel does not need to be reprocessed and the decommissioning of PWR stations is more straightforward than for Magnoxes and AGRs. The impact of regulatory change is therefore likely to be less for the PWRs than for the Magnoxes and the AGRs and, because it has yet to begin generating, National Power should be able to foresee and take into account the majority of costs associated with PWRs in its electricity prices. That is indeed what we would expect.
But we are dealing in this provision with the unforeseen. While we do not anticipate major cost increases arising with "back-end" PWR costs, as I said, it is not possible to rule this out: entirely. It would be wrong therefore at this stage to forego the possibility of the Government providing a contribution to such cost increases if and when they arise. We do not believe that the Bill should constrain the Government's freedom of action to respond to events in this way.
I believe we have had another useful discussion on this matter, and on more general points. I trust the Committee will show consistency in its support of the Government, based on the fact that the amendment which was placed before the Chamber last week was not accepted.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness and other Members of the Committee who have joined in the discussion on this amendment. I do not apologise for raising one or two of the general issues, partly because I did not take part in last weeks' debate—I am sure the Chamber always wishes to hear me

499
express my views—but also because the discussion has enabled us to clarify a number of key matters. I am bound to say, listening to the reply of the noble Baroness, that I think she put up a better argument for my position than I did myself. It seems to me that she shows ovewhelmingly, by her emphasis on the uncertainties of the matter, and by the need for government involvement, why it is foolhardy for the Government to follow the line they are doing with respect to nuclear power.
However, I wish to add another point. I do not accept logically, arising from the Division of last week, that Schedule 12 must follow. I repeat the point I made on an earlier occasion. It is that nuclear power stations could be offered to the private sector tout court—for it to buy them if it wants to. However, the firms who buy the nuclear power stations must meet legal safety standards. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is entirely right to raise the matter of safety. There is no difference between us on that matter. The Government could say, as they say to private enterprise generally and in the case of ferry companies, that safe ferries must be provided and that the Government will not subsidise firms to provide safe ferries. Therefore, why should the Government subsidise private industry to provide safe nuclear power stations? It is the duty of private industry to do that. To return to my point, we could certainly tell the private sector that this industry is offered for sale for what it will fetch in the open market, including the liability of the purchasers to meet these costs.
I raised a question which I do not believe has been answered. I asked why the Government should meet this liability. I must point out logically to the noble Baroness—I do not wish to make difficulties for her with her right honourable friends in another place—that the overwhelming case for the private sector is allegedly that what it is good at is bearing these risks. That is the whole point of the Government of which the noble Baroness is a member. It does not hold as an argument that there are long-term risks here, and that therefore the public sector must bear them.
I believe that the points that we have made are important. We have also learnt a great deal. I was particularly interested to note that when it comes to decommissioning we are talking about something that will happen 100 years from now. That is a measure of our difficulties in this respect.
To conclude, I accept what has been said about safety. I believe that safety is enormously important, but what is not obvious to me is who should bear the cost. That is the reason why I raised the amendment.
I shall not press the matter to a vote. That would not be appropriate because this is a matter of clarification and perhaps for a vote subsequently. In reminding us of the amendments which the Government will bring forward on Report the noble Baroness has guided us from the "may" to the "will" of the schedule. Therefore, having profited from listening to the debate, it seems to me that it would not be appropriate for me to press the matter now. However, I warn the noble Baroness that I look forward at Report stage to seeing her amendments
500
which correspond to this amendment, so that the matter can be explored in more detail. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 235:
Page 118. line 47, at end insert—
("( ) No grants, loans or guarantees shall be made under this schedule except in relation to unanticipated costs connected with changes in regulations.").
The noble Lord said: We have covered most of the ground of this amendment but it enables us to clarify one further point. The regulations that I have in mind in connection with the amendment are regulations laid down by the Government. Here I concede—and this is connected logically with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about safety—that the private sector could validly argue that, if the Government invent new and more stringent regulations on such matters, grants, loans or guarantees might be forthcoming. In other words, it seemed to me that there could be a case for public intervention if the problem is created by the Government in the first place.
To revert to the point which I made earlier, I do not believe that the private sector should be insured by the Government against normal market risks because in that case one should not privatise the industry in the first place. However, in an industry as sensitive as this, in which safety is so important, the public are excessively sensitive about safety. As noble Lords have pointed out, our experience of the nuclear industry is not that the industry has been dangerously unsafe, but nevertheless the public believe that it is. Therefore the public may exert excessive pressures which might cause the Government to place additional pressures on the industry. The industry might argue that the Government should pay for that out of the public purse. In that event I believe that there is a case for some form of government intervention. The sting in the tail is that, logically, I cannot see the case for such intervention other than in this instance. I am trying both to win an argument and to support the Government in this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I see the purpose of the amendment, but the wording of it perplexes me. It says:
"except in relation to unanticipated costs connected with changes in regulations".
We do not want to spell things out too much if we can find the plain meaning, but how are the costs anticipated? Is the noble Lord saying that if they are mentioned in regulations once they have been anticipated, but if they are not mentioned in regulations but arise later they are unanticipated?
Lord Peston: I am grateful that the noble Lord asked that question. To put it in the most commonsense terms, let us assume that I make a bid for a nuclear power station and I am the lucky winner of this great asset, which I assume has a discounted net value that is positive—in other words, I have bought something that is worth buying. Let us then assume that some time goes by and the Government change the rules of the game with respect to what I have to do to run my nuclear power station in a

501
way which I could validly argue no one could have foreseen. The resulting constraints on my actions mean that I incur significant costs which will convert a profitable operation into an unprofitable operation. It would not be unreasonable for me to go to the Government and say that because they have imposed new regulations on me they should compensate me. The converse would be if the Government were to say to me that what they had done was something that any reasonable person would have anticipated, that I should have included it in my bid price and they would not compensate me.
The issue revolves around what would reasonably be anticipated and what would not. That is what I had in mind. I do not say that the drafting is necessarily good.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord has made his intention clear, but I do not think that his amendment expresses it. However, in my opinion, even if the purpose of the amendment were acceptable, because of the way it is expressed—which is so vague and does not relate specifically to the regulations as originally laid—we should not accept it as it stands. It would have to be amended at a later stage even if it were added to the Bill now. I do not say that it should be.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Hood: I do not think that the amendment is practicable. However, it suggests another area on which clarification might be given. We are given to understand that the CEGB has made very large provision against the risks which are foreseen for the future. A provision is an accounting term. I suspect that it is not cash, but it probably has the effect of reducing the book value of the assets which at a point in time are to be sold to the public. It would be interesting to know whether the Government intend to take that into account in the price at which the generating companies are sold to the public, which would be reasonable. In future that must necessarily apply to all the stations in the PWR programme because, as the Minister has just stated, none of them will be open before the Bill becomes law. Perhaps the Minister could clarify an interesting problem.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I believe that this is a point which at some stage ought to be clarified if the Government want people to make bids. If something is altered as a result of government action and it results in additional expense being incurred, I believe that a claim for compensation ought to be looked at favourably. I believe that there is a precedent in planning. If one has planning permission to develop a site and for some reason before the plan has been put into operation there is an alteration in the law and the planning permission is revoked, one is paid compensation. The land was bought in anticipation of its being capable of development and the revocation was not the result of one's own actions but of a government decision.
502
I should have thought something along those lines should be considered in order that any bidder would not feel that he was taking on something that could be a real blockbuster if something were to happen.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to my noble friends for their suggestions and to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for having accepted the point that changes or tightening of the regulatory regime come within the scope of government support. Given the timescales involved, which we have already discussed, we believe that there may be other situations where it may be equally appropriate for the Government to be able to make a contribution if costs rise even though the cost rises may not have been the direct result of the regulatory change itself.
Perhaps I may give an example which will be helpful to the Committee. As was explained during the Committee stage in another place, there are still a number of important decisions to be made on waste disposal. I have already referred to that issue this afternoon. For example, it is not yet decided where the repository will be sited and the design has not yet been finalised. At the moment, therefore, the nuclear generators are making provision in their accounts, based on the best estimate and on the information that we have today, for the costs. But decisions on the site and design of the repository could significantly affect the cost of waste disposal. If those decisions resulted in higher costs, there would be a backlog effect and an impact on National Power's profits. That would have arisen for reasons beyond National Power's control, but there would have been no change in the regulatory regime.
It would not be fair to expect electricity consumers or National Power itself at that stage to fund the shortfall in the provisions. The shortfall would clearly be unforeseen and not within the control of the nuclear generators, even though it was not a result of a change to the regulatory regime. It is only fair, therefore, that the Government should contribute towards those costs.
I believe that it would be better to allow the powers in Schedule 12 to be used as we intend. They will be used to provide the minimum amount of government support necessary to make sure that National Power will be able to meet its obligations and to deal properly with the wastes. The provisions proposed have been carefully designed to provide support in areas that are potentially subject to the greatest risk. We believe that they will provide assurance that the Government will assist in meeting cost increases in those areas. But our proposals will ensure that those involved also bear a proportion of the increased costs sufficient to give them the proper incentives and minimise the costs in areas that they can control and influence. We believe that that should give potential investors the necessary confidence in the future to invest in those companies.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness for her answer. All I can say—this rather follows what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, said in regard to the earlier amendment—is that the more I listen to the discussion, the more bizarre the privatisation

503
of nuclear power seems to me. It is the strangest of strange privatisations. That emerges more and more clearly. However, having said that, we have again learnt at least something of what the Government have in mind, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 236 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I want to mention a few further points about the schedule. I would not wish it to be withdrawn from the Bill, but, in her opening remarks on an earlier amendment, my noble friend appeared to take more encouragement than I thought she should from the fact that the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, was defeated the other day. She can hardly be surprised that a schedule of this kind should at least attract a minimum of discussion. Self-denial is almost my middle name when it comes to making long speeches and I refrained from expanding my remarks as I think I might well have done and repeating a great many of the things that were said in that earlier debate. After all, repetition is not a phenomenon entirely strange to the Committee.
The presence of Schedule 12 to the Bill is a further indication of the Government's awareness of the need to treat the nuclear sector of the industry entirely differently from the rest. I do not believe that the Government have adequately met that point at all, nor, in my view, has my noble friend sufficiently answered the two questions that I asked her.
First, I marvel at the silence that has overtaken the supply industry. I cannot believe that the Government would be right in deducing from that silence any measure of enthusiastic or positive support for their proposals. I am still looking for a name—Mr. Baker, who made the speech to which my noble friend referred, is not that name—of some leader in that industry who is a positive enthusiast for the Government's proposals in the lumping together of nuclear and conventional generation.
Secondly, have the Government any evidence of the reaction of investors who may be contemplating investment in that bit of the generating industry which is to include the nuclear sector? I have more than a suspicion that not only the debate the other day, but also the impossibility of attracting outside money into a hotch-potch are responsible for the Government looking again at the question.
However, I still think—and I want my noble friend to be very clear about this point—that the Government have not recognised the extent of the uncertainties which they have acknowledged, but which, I think, will in the end cause them very much to regret the steps that they are contemplating.
Baroness Hooper: I made reference, in relation to the general remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, chose to make in introducing his first amendment this afternoon, to the interesting debate
504
that we had in Committee last week. I believe that, in responding to those general remarks, I covered as fully as will be acceptable to many noble Lords the points at issue in relation to both Clause 93 and Schedule 12.
Schedule 12 is an important schedule and should be looked at in the detail with which noble Lords customarily look at those important matters. However, I should like to reiterate that the Government feel it necessary to make those provisions simply because we believe that the nuclear industry has a better future in the private sector. We feel that the future of nuclear power is important to this country, both for reasons of security of supply and for environmental reasons. That is why we have taken such pains, in trying to make the necessary provision, to give all those with anxieties responses to their doubts. I hope that noble Lords will accept that that is the spirit behind Schedule 12.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Before we finally leave Schedule 12, I should say that I accept the two propositions that my noble friend has just made at the end of her speech, but the only reason why I am interested in the matter is that I want to see that we get value. That is very important because, if we are seen to fall down on obtaining the real money value from the privatisation of this great industry, confidence in the privatisation policies, which I think are right, will be undermined and we shall not get support.
I hope that my noble friend will see that the department looks at the points that were made in the amendments to Schedule 12 because the offer must be made attractive enough for people to want to take on the obligation and buy the shares. When a worthwhile auctioneer has a varied lot to sell, he does not put too many of the good sellers with the bad sellers because, invariably, the bad seller interferes with the price that one receives for the good one.
People are frightened of the nuclear aspect. I do not think that they have grounds for such fear. However, the fact that the fear is present will affect the situation to some extent. In terms of people buying these shares, the more we can clear away the doubts the better the finanical result will be. At this stage it is the financial results that I have in mind when I make any point on this clause.
Baroness Hooper: I need say no more than I believe that our proposals are designed to achieve—and certainly aimed specifically at obtaining—full value for the industry.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 94 [Provision of statistical information]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If Amendment No. 236ZA is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 236ZB.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 236ZA:
Page 65, line 1, leave out from ("may") to ("serve") in line 3.
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, in moving this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 236ZB. I hope that we can deal with this matter fairly rapidly although it raises one or two points of importance.
I am viewing this procedure as a learning process. I did not know that the present position regarding provision of information was operated solely on a voluntary basis. It is stated in the Notes on Clauses. Therefore I assume that it is on a voluntary basis. My view, and that of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, is that in terms of generation, transmission and supply, the electricity industry will always be one in which there is a public interest. That interest derives in part from such a matter as energy efficiency. However, it arises because of our concern with the environment and for safety. It arises because even though the Government are proposing to privatise the industry, they are proposing to subsidise the privatised industry directly, so far as we can discover, and because of the non-fossil fuel guarantee. It therefore seems to us to be important that this industry should be obliged to provide the information that the public generally require to comment on and criticise its performance. Certainly it means that once the industry is in the private sector, we cannot rely on voluntarism.
The Bill uses the words "statistical information". What do the Government have in mind when they use that expression? Do they use the word "statistical" simply to mean quantitative? In other words, is this amendment solely to do with the provision of numerical facts? If that is all that it provides for, that is not good enough. Although a great deal of the information that we require will be statistical and quantitative, much that we require might be of the more general, prescriptive kind. That is why we have added the expression "and other general" information. On reflection, perhaps a more general statement that the Secretary of State may instruct the industry to provide all the information that is required in the public interest is probably the simplest.
I put it in that way so that the noble Baroness is aware of what we have in mind. I hope that we shall not go down any track where the provision of information to the public would be less than it is at present. That is the answer that I wish to hear: that the position with respect to the private industry will be no worse than it is with respect to the national industry—and with any luck it might be better. We have put these amendments down to obtain some Government response on that issue.
The Earl of Dundee: First, let me make it quite clear that this clause is about the provision of statistical information to the Government. That is information that is collected and aggregated for the purpose of measuring the contribution that the electricity industry makes to the economy of the United Kingdom and its constituent countries. It has nothing to do with regulation, and should not be confused with the other powers in the Bill which deal with the collection of other types of information. For example, the director has a duty under Clause
506
45 to keep under review activities connected with the generation, transmission and supply of electricity. He may under Clause 28 obtain information on possible contraventions of licence conditions, and there will be conditions in the licences as well about the provision of information to the director. Nor should this clause be confused with Clause 54 which prevents the disclosure except in specified circumstances of information about any particular business which is obtained under Part I of the Bill and which relates to the affairs of the individual, or to any particular business.
Clause 94 is purely and simply about the provision of statistical information. Members of the Committee will be aware that the Government prepare a wide range of statistics of many kinds: statistics relating to employment, earnings, output, investment, producer and consumer prices indices, and supply and demand for electricity. The Government fully intend to publish statistical information about the electricity supply industry after privatisation similar to that published now and similar to that published for other fuel industries. I hope that that may give some reassurance to the thrust of the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
The statistical information relating to the electricity supply which the Government publish at the moment is provided by the electricity supply industry on a voluntary basis, of which the noble Lord mentioned that he had recently become aware. We expect this to continue to be the case after privatisation. However, if, contrary to our expectations the voluntary arrangements should break down, Clause 94 would give the Secretary of State the powers to ensure that the necessary statistical information would be forthcoming from the industry.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lord seek to widen the powers of the Secretary of State to seek information. As drafted, Clause 94(1) enables the Secretary of State to serve a notice under this Clause if he considers it expedient for the purposes of obtaining statistical information relating to the generation, supply or transmission of electricity. The amendment would widen this provision by enabling him—regardless of whether he considered it expedient for the purpose of obtaining statistical information relating to the generation, transmission or supply of electricity—to serve such a notice if he considered it expedient for the purpose of obtaining not only statistical but also general information.
Clause 94 is concerned with statistical information for the purpose of preparing national economic and energy statistics as I outlined a moment ago. It has nothing to do with the information that the director will need to carry out his functions and which is provided for elsewhere in this Bill. Because this clause is about the provision only of statistical information, it follows that if the Secretary of State wishes to serve a notice to ensure that information is provided by any licence holder, or any person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply, he should be able to do so only if he believes it expedient for the purpose of obtaining statistical information, and there is a clear need.

507
I appreciate the anxieties that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has expressed. However, I hope that in the light of what I have just said, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The Minister has been helpful in referring to Clauses 28, 45 and 54. Having regard to that clarification, this amendment has some significance and requires further consideration. It is perfectly clear that Clause 94 relates to the provision of statistical information. Although the word "statistical" has been removed by this amendment, it can refer only to the provision of statistical information. If the Secretary of State wishes to obtain some statistical information, it seems to me right and proper that he should be able to comment on the performance and ask for the statistical information. It would be quite unnecessary to consider whether it is expedient. If he wants it, it must be expedient. Therefore I believe that these two lines should be deleted. I support the amendment. I should like to urge the Government to reconsider the provision again.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. He was kind enough to say that the Government had quite a number of aspects for consideration here concerning the powers and the background. We have considered this amendment sufficiently. I do not wish to belabour the point any more.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I hesitate to intervene again, but I do not recall in my reading of the comments on Clauses 28, 45 and 54 whether there were specific provisions in relation to statistical information. Clause 94 tries to clarify that by providing statistical information. I am suggesting that the lines to be deleted by the amendment are totally unnecessary in the circumstances.
The Earl of Dundee: It may be of assistance to the noble Lord if I remind him that information on the performance of companies will be collected and published by the director under Clause 40.
Lord Peston: I thank both the noble Lord for his intervention and the noble Earl for his answer. I am well aware of the earlier clauses and I hope that I am not confused between them and this. My problem is statistical, if I can put it that way. I have a feeling that the noble Earl's department thinks that the word means something in this context. I am certain that it does not. In other words, if the word "statistical" were left out it would not make any difference. That is the point I am trying to make.
To put it differently, as long as one can say that the information required involves some numbers, probably the Secretary of State can get away with it by saying that it is statistical. Either way it seems to me to be a bit peculiar. However, the noble Earl gave me the one answer that I wanted to hear, which is that the position with respect to the kind of information that I have in mind will be no worse under the privatised industry than it is under the nationalised industry. I am certain that the noble
508
Earl said that. That is mostly what my noble friend and I wanted to hear. Given that that is what the noble Earl said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 236ZB to 236B not moved.]
Clause 94 agreed to.
Clause 95 [Competition and restrictive trade practices]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 236C:
Page 66, line 16, leave out from ("section") to end of line 19.
The noble Lord said: I hope to deal with the matter very quickly to get some reassurance. As I understand it, Clause 95 is meant to clarify how the various competition Acts apply to this new privatised industry. I have tried to read the clause, but it is highly technical and I have had great difficulty in understanding it. The Fair Trading Act 1973, the Competition Act 1980 and the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 apply to the privatised electricity industry in so far as they apply to any other privatised industry. My difficulty with that—can I be told that there is no difficulty here?—is that I cannot make head or tail of the subsection in Clause 95 that our amendment seeks to delete. From line 16 onwards it seems to me impossible to work out from the wording what the Government are saying.
I am willing to accept that I shall be told shortly what the clause means. But it seems to me that the easiest way to deal with the matter is to ask for it to be removed so that whoever replies for the Government can tell me what difference that would make. What we want to know is whether Clause 95(1), which seems to me to be the only part that matters, says in terms that these Acts will apply. But can we be sure that they will?
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: Clause 95 is intended to clarify the effect of general competition law on the electricity industry after privatisation. I am sorry that it has not sufficiently clarified it for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. For the first time it means that the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 will bear on the industry. There is nothing mysterious about the power in subsection (2)(b)—which the amendment seeks to delete—to make exemptions from that Act. There are already procedures for such an exemption-making power, for example, in the Gas Act 1986 and in the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 itself.
The 1976 Act will apply to agreements relating to electricity whether they existed before the clause commences and continue after it or are made after it commences. Any exemptions would be granted only after full consultation with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and subject to prior consultation with the Director General of Electricity Supply and the Director General of Fair Trading. Moreover, such exemptions can only be made by order subject to the negative resolution procedures of Parliament so there can be no question of any

509
furtive attempt to circumvent normal competition rules.
In fact we believe that the clause is a major step forward in applying competition law to electricity, and the exemption power will be used only in a limited number of cases necessary to enable a competitive and efficient industry to develop. I trust that that helps to reassure the noble Lord.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness. It half reassures me. I entirely agree that the purpose of the clause is correct. Is there any chance that she can give me an example of the kind of exemption she has in mind? It seems to me that, as people begin to contemplate the reality of privatisation, two aspects are dawning on them. One is that there may be a good deal less competition than was hoped for. That is quite clear. The other is that different parts of the industry may engage in anti-competitive or unfair behaviour. There was quite a good example in the Financial Times today where there has been some discussion about the possible unfair behaviour of the generating companies compared with the area boards.
We are totally with the noble Baroness that it is vital that these Acts should apply. I am reassured on that, but I am a bit worried about the exemptions. It is possible that there may not be a specific example that comes to hand. Perhaps she can write to my noble friend and to myself on that. I should be a good deal more reassured on this matter if I could see why the scope for exemptions is there.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I should like to support all that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said. I too would like to know what circumstance might arise where it was necessary for any exemption to be specified in an order. What is the kind of situation that may arise? I do not understand the reason for this and it is entirely in my ignorance that I ask the question. When I first read the provision I thought it was a belt and braces technique on the part of the Secretary of State to cover every circumstance to which the Act should not apply. Prima facie I think that that is quite wrong and therefore I support the deletion of this subsection.
Baroness Hooper: I shall endeavour to help the Committee by giving examples. They include certain agreements which are essential to the future operation of the industry and which are currently in the process of development. For example, there is the technical grid operating code which will enable the transmission system to be run efficiently. The distributors and generators pooling agreements will enable the economic benefits of the merit order and energy trading to be realised. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will remember, we agreed that this was a complex area.
Also, in the national interest we see a need for a fuel security agreement on how the system would be run during a fuel supply emergency. The agreements will underpin the operation of the industry's new structure and they are not yet in final form. When they are we must consider how they are likely to
510
interact with RTP legislation and whether any exemption is needed. Certainly we shall not be giving industry carte blanche. I hope that that answer is helpful.
Lord Peston: Yes, that is enormously helpful. The point that the noble Baroness is making is that at certain times there will be co-operative activities on the part of individual enterprises which prima facie look non-competitive or anti-competitive. However, in the way that the industry must operate they must behave jointly and the exemptions will allow that to take place. We look forward to seeing how that works in practice, but I now understand the nature of the Government's thinking. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clause 96 [Rights of entry]:
On Question, Whether Clause 96 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Clause 96 amends the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954. I accept that on the whole it does so in a way which should benefit the consumer. A 28-day limit on the warrant issued by a justice of the peace is not in the original legislation. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to let the clause slip by without making two points.
First, the right of entry of representatives of British Gas is amended at the same time as the right of entry of representatives of electricity boards. To say the least, it is curious that regulations for the gas industry should be amended in an electricity Bill.
The second point is more important. In this clause we are allowing right of entry on warrant by a private company—that is, assuming that privatisation takes place—into other people's premises. We need to pause and look at the consequences. In the case of gas it is probably easier because on the whole supply is based on the town gas network. Most of the customers of British Gas who will be affected by the change are part of the town gas system and are normally private consumers. Of course that is not the case in respect of electricity because its provision is more widespread than that of gas. It is almost inconceivable to think of an industry, factory, farm, domestic dwelling or commercial establishment in the financial services network which is not supplied with electricity. It is the major source of power for such institutions.
As I read the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954, by its amendment we are allowing representatives of private companies (post privatisation) the right of entry into arty premises after persuading a justice of the peace that the case is proper. We are allowing private companies to move into any establishment, be it domestic, commercial, industrial or whatever. Before we do so we should reflect to see whether there should be some constraint on those private companies in respect of this very important power.

511
One of the interesting features of the privatisation of the area boards—and I continue to call them that—has been that a number of people have told me that the amount of information which they have accumulated about their customers is enormous. I speak with some experience of Wales because I am involved in small matters there. The South Wales Electricity Board has an enormous amount of information about its customers. There is a great deal of talk that, as the privatised area boards diversify, they will have a data base which can be used by other people in the same way as data bases have been used by various commercial concerns for reasons which may or may not be legitimate but are certainly commercial.
To give such a privatised concern an absolute right of entry into any commercial, industrial or personal premises appears to us to warrant a question or two. It is for that reason that I wish to speak on clause stand part.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising these questions because we believe that Clause 96 is an example of our intention that the Bill should improve the position of consumers. I first pick up his point about gas being included in an electricity Bill. The Act is the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act, so it is inevitable that we must deal with both. However, we believe that it is important to keep the procedures consistent as between the two industries. The Act which is being amended treated the two industries equally and we believe that we should follow that through.
No one wishes to see rights of entry given unnecessarily but the Bill recognises that there are cases where they are essential—for example, in meter reading and in the interests of safety so that suppliers can ensure that their installations are safe and the requirements of the electricity supply regulations are being met. Also they must have access in an emergency. Unfortunately in some cases rights of access are also needed to enable suppliers to take action against customers who have been using electricity fraudulently or who have wilfully interfered with their supplies. In the latter case there are safety implications.
Existing legislation provides a number of safeguards against misuse of the powers. We have ensured that not only will that protection for consumers be maintained but also that it should be strengthened. We have introduced a number of realistic periods of notice to be given to consumers so as to reduce any inconvenience to them. For example, when a public electricity supplier requires entry to a consumer's premises in order to carry out work on his lines or plant, five working days' notice must be given.
The information held by the area boards will be controlled by the provisions of the Data Protection Act. It can be used only within the limitations imposed by that Act. The amendment made by Clause 96 will ensure that in future any warrant granted under Section 2 of the 1954 Act shall be valid either until the reason for which the warrant was granted is satisfied or until 28 days have expired
512
from the initial granting of the warrant, whichever is the earlier.
We have given a firm undertaking on many occasions to use the opportunity presented by the Bill to modernise and consolidate the current law relating to the supply of electricity. We believe that this is one provision in the Bill which will accomplish just that. Therefore, I commend the clause to the Committee.
5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may take this argument further with the noble Baroness. Let us imagine a case where an industrial customer contracts directly with National Power post privatisation through the transparency which, through this Bill, we are now going to give to, for example, the South Wales Electricity Board. In other words, the South Wales Electricity Board acts as a simple conduit for electricity supplied directly on contract from National Power to, for example, British Steel in South Wales. Let us imagine that there is a problem concerned with British Steel's consumption of electricity or that there is a dispute between British Steel and National Power. Are we really saying, as we seem to me to be saying in this clause, that National Power can apply to a justice of the peace, a lay magistrate, for a warrant to enter the Llanwern and Port Talbot steelworks in South Wales to simply barge in and march about? Is that what we are saying?
With the complexity of the new electricity industry, it seems to me that the Government may not have thought through the proposed provisions. I understand that it is sensible to have proper rights of entry to what I call domestic consumer premises. That is why, although I made a point about the gas industry, I shall not pursue that very far. However, I reiterate that the electricity industry is much more far ranging than the gas industry and I believe that on some occasions we may need to think through a little more carefully as to how far a justice of the peace can give to one large corporation the right of entry to another large corporation.
Baroness Hooper: I should point out that the right is granted only to public electricity suppliers and that the requirements of the Act that appropriate notice be given and that the consent of the owner or occupier be obtained are important. After all, when a warrant is sought the 1954 Act requires that the supplier gives to the magistrate sworn information in writing to show the purpose for which entry is required, that there is a right of entry for that purpose and that the relevant requirements which attach to the power, such as giving notice, have been complied with. Therefore, it is a fairly thorough procedure.
I add that the proposal has been supported by a wide range of consumer bodies, including the Electricity Consumers' Council, which is in total agreement with it and the time limit to be imposed. I believe that that probably refutes the suggestion that insufficient time and consideration have been given to this proposal.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We on this side of the Committee have had our arguments with the Electricity Consumers' Council. We do not necessarily see eye to eye with it. As was pointed out earlier on in Committee, it seems to stand alone in these matters against other consumer organisations. However, I am not arguing the consumer point. Following on from what the noble Baroness said, can she tell me what happens when National Power contracts with British Steel and there is a problem? As she said, the right of entry only applies to public electricity suppliers. Does National Power say to South Wales Electricity plc, "Will you please go into Llanwern and Port Talbot steelworks on our behalf, although they have contracted directly with us for electricity?" How will this work?
Baroness Hooper: As I said, public electricity suppliers have this right but they are the only ones to have the statutory right of entry. I believe that the procedures to which I have referred about notice and the information to be given are adequate to cover the problem about which the noble Lord seems anxious. I do not quite follow his argument in relation to the example that he gave.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps the noble Baroness will be good enough to read what I said and she may then understand my argument. It is quite important to clarify what will happen if the South Wales Electricity Board, to take an example, is to be required by National Power, which has contracted directly with British Steel, to go in and investigate a problem on sworn affidavits and all the rest of it, when British Steel used to be a customer of the South Wales Electricity Board. This is not a consumer argument but an argument about what will happen after privatisation. I do not wish to pursue this argument. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will read what I said and perhaps she will answer accordingly at a later stage.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Production and supply of heat or electricity etc. by Scottish local authorities]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden) moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 119, line 14, leave out ("thinks") and insert ("think").
The noble Lord said: I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 238, 239, 240 and 241. These amendments correct minor drafting errors in Schedule 13 to the Bill, which inserts new sections into the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the effect of which is to give local authorities in Scotland the same powers as those enjoyed by their counterparts in England and Wales in relation to combined heat and power schemes. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister. I did not realise that my syntax was so bad until I read what I thought was a rather pedantic group of amendments. I shall need to think very clearly when using this sort of language again so that
514
I have it right next time. I am very grateful to him for drawing my attention to this matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 237A:
Page 119, leave out lines 29 to 31.
The noble Lord said: This is an exploratory amendment. The Committee will be aware that it was common, particularly in the days of old open fireplaces, for local authorities to burn their refuse collections in order to produce electricity, which was sold to the grid. With modern heating and very few open fires, the same residue energy is not available. However, there is a large movement in some parts of the world, particularly in Germany, to use recycled waste for the generation of electricity. That is surely something which should be encouraged with advancing technology. Let us suppose that some cities decided to set up their own generating station. For example, I believe that Milton Keynes has a fairly large experimental scheme along those lines. What would they be able to do? Would that be part of the process prescribed by the Minister to allow a local authority to produce electricity? I hope he can help on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: This matter was raised in another place. It is not our view that it is a proper course of action to allow local authorities unrestricted powers to sell electricity. In future, as a result of the introduction of these new provisions, local authorities in Scotland will be able to engage in the production of electricity through CHP schemes. We have no wish, however, to encourage them to engage in the production of electricity for sale for its own sake. In our view that would bring about an unnecessary extension of local authority powers which could only result in greater demands being placed on the ordinary citizen to finance such activities. We see little merit in this amendment which would grant to local authorities in Scotland wide-ranging powers to expand their activities in a complex and highly technological industry in which they have had little expertise, at least since 1947.
We do recognise, however, that some local authorities which, for example, may produce electricity either directly or indirectly from waste, might find themselves in a position in which they are producing more electricity than they can use themselves. As my honourable friend made clear in the other place, the proposed new subsection (3) allows for such circumstances to be taken into account through the words "except as may be prescribed". Each case will be judged on its merit. If the intention of the noble Lord opposite is simply to ensure that this eventuality is catered for in the Bill I can give him the same assurance. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am disappointed that the provision is not spelt out a little more clearly in the Bill, though I suggested that the subsection would allow a way out for local authorities. The supply and provision of electricity through waste

515
disposal, for which we all wish, may in future become quite a big industry. It would be wrong if local authorities were to be restricted. Depending on how successful it became there could, unfortunately, be difficulties with a commercial producer of electricity who may object to the electricity being sold at a cheap rate.
I am sorry that the Government are only able to give that assurance without it being spelt out more clearly. However, I do not suppose we shall get it clearer and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): Amendments Nos. 238 to 241 have been spoken to, and if no noble Lord wishes to speak further to them I propose to put them en bloc.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 238 to 241:
Page 120, line 12, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom").
Page 120, line 28, leave out ("which supplies or proposes") and insert ("who supply or propose").
Page 120, line 48, leave out ("which provides or proposes") and insert ("who provide or propose").
Page 121, line 30, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 98 agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment 241A:
Before Clause 99, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment etc. of Electricity Supply Pension Scheme.
.The provisions of Schedule (The Electricity Supply Pension Scheme) to this Act (which provide for amending the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme and for giving special protection to certain persons who have or may acquire rights under that scheme) shall have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 242ZA and explain the reason for my notice of intention to oppose that Clause 99 shall stand part of the Bill. The main purpose of these amendments is to introduce new provisions to protect the pension rights of employees in England and Wales who are transferred to the successor companies. The Committee will see that in incorporating this provision we have transferred Clause 99 into a new schedule; hence the need to oppose it.
In the White Paper on privatising electricity the Government gave an undertaking that privatisation would not affect the benefits payable to members and pensioners of the industry's pension schemes. As part of meeting that commitment, during the Committee stage in another place, my honourable friend gave an undertaking that the Government would bring forward an amendment to protect the pension rights of existing employees transferred to the successor companies in the event of the electricity supply industry's pension scheme being wound up.
This special protection replaces the existing no worsenment provision contained in Section 54 of the
516
Electricity Act 1947. Under that Act the Secretary of State, when making pension regulations in respect of the electricity supply industry, is required to ensure that any amendment to an existing pension scheme or its winding up should not place a person with pension rights under the scheme in a worse position. The Electricity Supply Pension Scheme (commonly known as the ESPS) itself contains certain protection against any detriment of benefits for its members while it remains in existence. However, this was not considered to offer adequate protection in the light of the repeal of the existing statutory protection. The department has therefore had long and detailed consultations with the industry and the trade unions to find a way of offering an equivalent no worsenment protection after privatisation.
Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the schedule are the result of that detailed consultation. The Committee will appreciate that these are very complex provisions. Essentially, they establish a category of protected persons and require that such protected persons will not be placed in a worse position by reason either of the winding up of the ESPS or of other specified circumstances.
The persons to be covered by the no worsenment provision are employees who are contributing members of the ESPS on transfer day, persons who on that day are pensioners or have frozen benefits in the scheme, and dependants of all such persons. Employees will retain their protection so long as they have continuous employment as defined in the schedule—which essentially means continuous service with employers participating in the ESPS.
The protection will operate in a number of different circumstances: in particular if the ESPS is wound up, whether in whole or in part; or if, as a result, say, of a reorganisation or merger, a protected person became employed by a company which did not participate in the ESPS and the person had to leave the scheme.
In essence, if any of the specified events occurs, regulations will require the employer or employers from time to time of any person affected to ensure that protected persons employed by them will continue to enjoy pension rights which are no worse than they would have been if the ESPS had continued to exist, or the other specified events had not occurred. The schedule will also enable the protection against any detriment to existing pension rights in the ESPS itself to be entrenched in respect of protected persons. The schedule enables the regulations to provide for any dispute arising in respect of the no worsenment provisions to be referred to arbitration.
I have given only a very brief summary of the no worsenment provisions, but I am sure the Committee will recognise, by the length of the schedule, the depth into which we have gone to try to provide for every type of circumstance. I should explain that it is because the pension provisions have become so long and complex that it has been considered more appropriate to transfer them into a schedule.
I now turn briefly to paragraph 1 of the schedule which incorporates the contents of Clause 99, which deal with the amendments required to the ESPS on its transfer into the private sector. In transferring Clause 99 into the schedule we have made some relatively minor amendments. In particular, these amendments permit non-successor companies to join the scheme, enable requirements to be imposed in respect of the funding of certain liabilities, and extend the provisions for the transfer to other persons of functions currently exercisable under the scheme following the dissolution of the Electricity Council which exercises them at present.
The Committee will appreciate that the schedule merely provides the framework for the regulations which will set out the various amendments to the ESPS and the detailed provisions of the no worsenment protection. The regulations themselves will clearly have to be very carefully drafted and this will, of course, be done in consultation with the industry. The regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure and there will therefore be an opportunity for the Chamber to consider the detailed implementation of these powers. However, I am sure the Committee will wish to note that the Government have given an undertaking to the trade unions that they, as well as the industry, will be consulted on the draft regulations.
The regulations will be essential for securing the continued approval of the pension scheme by Inland Revenue, for securing the pension position of the new categories of persons being transferred into it, and for setting out the no worsenment provisions which will replace the present protection under the 1947 Act. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State accepts that it is clearly necessary that these changes should be in place before the transfer date so that all parties would be fully aware of their rights and obligations. I can therefore give the Committee a firm commitment that my right honourable friend will make the necessary regulations, after consultation with the interested parties, before the transfer date in order to implement our White Paper undertaking. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sure the noble Baroness will be glad to hear that I am advised by the trade unions who are interested in this matter that they wish no points to be raised.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 99 negatived.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 241B:
Before Clause 100, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment etc. of Scottish Pension Schemes.
.The provisions of Schedule (The Scottish Pension Schemes) to this Act (which provide for amending the Hydroboard Superannuation Fund and the South of Scotland Electricity Board's Superannuation Scheme and for giving special protection to certain persons who have or may acquire rights under those schemes) shall have effect.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 241B, I should like to speak also to Amendment No.
518
242ZB and to oppose the Question that Clause 100 stand part of the Bill.
This amendment relates to the Scottish pension schemes. It has been prepared along similar lines to the amendment which my noble friend has introduced in relation to the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme in England and Wales and like that amendment, it does two things. First, it gives the Secretary of State for Scotland power to make regulations amending the two Scottish schemes and, secondly, it gives him the power to make regulations for protecting certain persons against any deterioration of their pension rights under the schemes. In both these respects our intention has been to provide compatibility, wherever possible, on both sides of the Border. I shall not, therefore, delay the House by reiterating the full explanation already given by my noble friend in relation to the previous amendment. Instead, I shall restrict myself to remarking on those aspects where, because of the existence of two separate pension schemes in Scotland, the provisions of this amendment necessarily differ from those relating to the ESPS.
Paragraph 1 of the new Schedule generally mirrors the provision being made for the ESPS and recreates much of what appears in Clause 100. However, unlike the ESPS, which embraces a number of participating bodies and employers, each of the Scottish schemes essentially embraces the employees of its own board, together with staff of the respective consultative councils (of which there are two in Scotland, one for each board area). Within the framework set out by regulations, each board is empowered to make rule changes without reference to the Secretary of State. The relative simplicity of the Scottish schemes is reflected in the fewer regulation-making powers which the Secretary of State requires to take in paragraph 1 to ensure that the schemes can be appropriately amended.
Likewise, the policy intention behind the provisions for protection, as set out in paragraphs 2 to 5 of this proposed new schedule, is the same on both sides of the Border. In Scotland, as in England, the same categories of person will be protected against worsenment of their pension rights and in the same circumstances. The variations in these paragraphs arise only from the need to cater for the existence of two pension schemes in Scotland rather than the single scheme in England and Wales. In particular, we need to provide for transferability between the Scottish schemes. This is necessary primarily because of the creation of a nuclear subsidiary jointly owned by both companies. To allow free movement between the subsidiary and its parent companies, we need to create links between the two Scottish pension schemes and allow for members to transfer between them without losing their protected status.
The protections outlined in these paragraphs will be achieved through regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. I echo the commitment which my noble friend has already described in relation to the ESPS, that such regulations will also be made by the Secretary of State in relation to the Scottish schemes. I therefore commend to the Committee this amendment and the substantial protection which it

519
provides for members of the pension schemes. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am sure the Minister will be pleased to know that I too have a communication from the trade unions. We accept this amendment in the new clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 100 negatived.
Clause 101 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 241C:
Page 68, line 44, after ("(2)") insert ("Subject to subsection (3) below").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 241D.
These amendments have to a certain extent been superseded by the amendments to Clause 92 which were agreed in Committee last Friday. Clause 92 as amended by this Committee gives the Secretary of State the requisite powers to deal with matters of nuclear safety and safety of the public. It is only if the Government announce their intention to try to overturn the amendments that the Committee has passed to Clause 92 that I would wish to pursue these amendments.
I am using this opportunity to allow the noble Baroness to declare the intention of the Government in respect of the amendments to Clause 92. If the noble Baroness thinks that the Government intend to overturn them, then I shall wish to pursue the debate on the present amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: The Government do not intend to do anything about the new clause and the amendments to Clause 92 in your Lordships' House. It is not for me to comment on what may happen in another place. I point out, as I did when I argued against the amendments at an earlier stage, that we see a danger in this new clause, with the associated amendments to Clause 92, in that they risk undermining the existing safety regime which we believe to be extremely good. By providing in the Bill for a procedure different from that in other safety legislation we believe that the risks are exacerbated.
I should be very happy to discuss these amendments if the noble Lord wishes.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for reiterating that the Government will not wish to overturn the Clause 92 amendments in this House. What happens in another place is for another place to determine.
In the light of that fact, I do not think that there is any virtue in pursuing the debate on the amendments that I have put before the Committee because these would only be relevant if the Clause 92 amendments were not in place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 241D not moved.]
Clause 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 agreed to,
5.30 p.m.
Clause 103 [Offences by bodies corporate]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 242:
Page 69, line 14, leave out ("manager") and insert ("any other officer appointed or elected, or capable of being appointed or elected, by a general meeting of that body corporate").
The noble Lord said: Clause 103 deals with offences by bodies corporate. It tracks wording which I have seen in previous legislation and therefore I am not surprised to see it here. Nevertheless, as we have remarked on a number of occasions during the Committee stage, just because wording has appeared in previous legislation does not necessarily mean that it is right.
The problem concerns a manager and a secretary. It concerns a manager because a manager has no special powers other than those accorded to him by his superiors. He is not, generally speaking, elected by shareholders. He is appointed by a board of directors. It seems odd therefore that he should be accused or arraigned if an offence is proved to have been committed through negligence or neglect. Managers in businesses have a wide variety of different tasks. They may not be told things which their directors or superiors do. "Managers" can include people down to junior manager level. It is odd that a manager should be put in this rather difficult position instead of an officer appointed or elected by a general meeting.
The same problem arises with secretaries. On these Benches we tried to insert into the Companies Bill which is now in another place a definition of what the secretary of a company is meant to do. The Government turned that down. Nowhere in the Companies Act 1985 or in the present Companies Bill is there a definition of what a secretary is, who elects him and what his functions are. The Government have persistently set their face against introducing such a definition. In the light of that it seems odd to find in Clause 103(1) the word "secretary" appearing yet again. I wonder whether the Government have looked at this point. I understand that the wording is reproduced from other legislation. I should be grateful if the Government could show that they have looked at this point afresh in legislation where we are dealing with offences of a serious nature by bodies corporate. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: Clause 103 is a common provision in statutes. It creates offences which can be committed by bodies corporate. Similar provisions can be found in Section 45 of the Gas Act and Section 102 of the Telecommunications Act. Clause 103 enables the individuals responsible for the commission of an offence under the Bill to be prosecuted and punished as well as the body corporate itself.
The noble Lord's amendment appears to remove managers from the categories of persons who might be prosecuted for such an offence. I cannot really understand why the noble Lord wants to protect managers and other similar officers from the provisions of this clause. It may be that the noble

521
Lord does not wish to do that, but if he did it would be rather strange. Managers hold positions of responsibility within organisations. Therefore it is only right that if they abuse that responsibiliy and commit an offence under the Bill they should be liable for prosecution. It would clearly be unacceptable for directors, secretaries and other board appointees to be liable for prosecution but for managers to be exempt.
The amendment replaces the reference to "manager" with a reference to,
"any other officer appointed or elected … by a general meeting".
In relation to companies, which are of course bodies corporate, the term "officers" includes directors, managers and secretaries. So it appears that the amendment seeks to replace a clear and direct reference to managers with a rather unclear reference to officers, which includes managers. Still in relation to companies, auditors and liquidators can be appointed by a general meeting. I do not think that they are generally regarded as officers of a company and they are certainly outside the Companies Act definition of the term. I do not think it would be right to extend the clause to cover auditors and liquidators.
The noble Lord mentioned the position of secretaries. The duties of a company secretary vary according to the requirements of the directors of the company and the company's size. We have considered the position of secretaries about which the noble Lord sought an assurance. In the light of my general remarks I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured and will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation of the duties of a secretary—the duties as specified by a board of directors. We all understood that. I am grateful for his explanation of why the drafting of the amendment may not be perfect. I agree with that. However, he has not addressed the problem of how managers—they may be junior managers who are not involved in the business and who have had facts kept from them by their superiors—can be fairly prosecuted for offences of neglect under the Bill as it is presently drafted. Is a manager under a statutory duty to find out everything that will protect him in the case of such a prosecution?
Secondly, the position of a secretary is vague, ambiguous and ill-defined. Nobody knows what he is meant to do. Nobody knows who a company secretary is. It is not defined in the Companies Act 1985. There are references to secretaries but, as the noble Earl says, a secretary is a chap who is told by the board of directors what to do. He may be kept informed by the board of directors. However, in the case of a noted public company transferring its headquarters north of the Border, the company secretary was not told what was going on. That can happen. The company secretary has no rights. Although he is a legal officer of the company he has no right to attend board meetings or committee meetings. None of that is set out in companies legislation as at present drafted. Perhaps the noble
522
Earl will comment on what I have said before I consider what to do with the amendment.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord for elaborating further his concern. The degree of knowledge and level of responsibility of the manager would be a factor to consider in deciding whether to bring proceedings and in considering the amount of any fine. The word "manager" can be defined loosely. One can manage at different levels. The level of responsibility is judge. The same goes for a secretary. The term "secretary" may to a certain extent be vague but that is not to say that the level of responsibility or respective levels of responsibility of people who may hold the position of secretary in one sense or another are vague. It is a question of judging the level of responsibility.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I hate to disagree with the noble Earl, but it is wholly vague. Nobody knows what the responsibility of a secretary is. It is not defined in the Companies Act.
Lord Mottistone: The noble Lord is barking up the wrong tree. The subsection says that the offence must be,
"proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of",
and then refers to these various people. Had I hazarded my ship—fortunately, I did not—in these terms as a junior manager in the navy, the noble Lord says that I should not have been punished because I was not a member of the board of directors. Surely there are times when companies have people who offend against the law. Quite often, managers are the ones who are responsible for it. I do not understand the thrust of his argument; it seems to me to be quite out of keeping with ordinary life.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I have in fact moved on from the argument contained in the initial amendment, as the noble Lord would have recognised if he had been following the debate. I am seeking a definition somewhere in the legislation of what are the responsibilities of a manager or a secretary under which he can be arraigned as regards any neglect in an offence committed under the provisions of the Bill. Since no responsibilities of either a manager or a secretary are defined anywhere in the Companies legislation—unlike the manager, or officer in charge of a ship, whose responsibilities are very carefully defined—it seems most odd to have this loose expression in the Bill.
The Earl of Dundee: Picking up the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, perhaps I may say that his expression was not totally apt when he said that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was barking up the wrong tree. Indeed, the noble Lord seldom barks up the wrong tree, and earlier in Committee I think the reference was to barking up the wrong pylon.
However, returning to the noble Lord's concern regarding legal definitions, my understanding is that in this context a "manager" would refer to an employee who has a job of some responsibility in

523
the company, as I said earlier, and who would therefore be in a position to commit an offence under the provisions of the Bill. The vagueness of "secretary" as a general term is I think irrelevant. The courts will judge a particular case in the light of the circumstances of that case. It would be clear in a particular case what the secretary's responsibilities were.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for doing his best as regards what is an unfortunate tree, or pylon, to have barked up. Nevertheless, we have had a good debate on the matter. If the Government are determined simply to copy all previous legislation into new legislation then there is nothing we can do. However, I wish that they would look at the matter clearly and sensibly and start afresh. I think they should look at the matter with a new mind. Indeed, the noble Earl has a fine mind, so why does he not look at the matter to see what can be done? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 103 agreed to.
Clauses 104 to 107 agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 242ZA:
Before Schedule 14, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE
THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY PENSION SCHEME
Power to amend scheme
1.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme (in this Schedule referred to as "the Scheme") for any of the following purposes, namely—

(a) for enabling the following persons to participate in or acquire pension rights under the scheme on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, namely—

(i) members and former members of existing bodies;

(ii) officers and former officers of the Electricity Consumers' Council; and

(iii) persons (other than successor companies) whose participation in the scheme will not prejudice its approval for the purposes of the relevant enactments, and employees of such persons;

(b) for requiring any persons (including persons not participating in the scheme) to make payments to the trustees of the scheme in such circumstances as may be prescribed;

(c) for requiring or enabling any functions exercisable under the scheme by existing bodies to be exercisable by such persons, and in such circumstances, as may be prescribed;

(d) for enabling the scheme to be wound up (in whole or in part) in such circumstances as may be prescribed; and

(e) for securing that the scheme continues to be approved for the purposes of the relevant enactments, notwithstanding the transfers made by this Act and the repeal by this Act of section 54 of the Electricity Act 1947.

(2) Regulations under this paragraph may make such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) Regulations under this paragraph may be made so as to have effect from a date prior to their making, so however that so much of any regulations as provides that any provision of regulations shall have effect from a date prior to their making shall not place any person other than existing bodies or Scottish Boards, or their successor companies, in a worse position than he would have been in if the regulations had been made to have effect only from the date of their making.
(4) Regulations under this paragraph shall not be made at any time after any supply or generating company has ceased to be wholly owned by the Crown.
Protection for certain persons
2.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of securing that—

(a) no person to whom paragraph 3(1) or (2) below applies is placed in any worse position by reason of—

(i) any winding up, in whole or in part, of a relevant scheme, that is to say, the scheme or any other scheme which is provided or amended in pursuance of the regulations; or

(ii) any amendment of a relevant scheme which results in benefits under that scheme being reduced, or contributions by employees being increased, and is made otherwise than in such circumstances as may be prescribed;

(b) no person to whom paragraph 3(1) below applies is prevented from continuing to participate in or acquire pension rights under the scheme by reason of any change of employer—

(i) which does not affect his continuity of employment and is made otherwise than in such circumstances as may be prescribed; and

(ii) in the case of which his new employer either is a participant in the scheme or is wholly owned by one or more companies which or each of which is such a participant; and

(c) no person to whom paragraph 3(1) below applies is placed in any worse position by reason of any change of employer which does not affect his continuity of employment but prevents him from continuing to participate in or acquire pension rights under a relevant scheme;

and the references in paragraphs (a) and (c) above to any worse position shall be construed, in relation to a person to whom paragraph 3(1) below applies who, after the transfer date, ceases to participate in or acquire pension rights under the scheme, as references to a position which is any worse than his position immediately before he so ceases.
(2) Regulations under this paragraph may impose duties (whether as to the amendment of the scheme, the provision or amendment of other schemes, the purchase of annuities, the making of payments or otherwise) on persons who are or have been employers of persons to whom paragraph 3(1) or (2) below applies; and duties so imposed on any person may include duties owed to persons of whom he is not and has not been an employer.
(3) Regulations under this paragraph may also provide for any dispute arising under them to be referred to arbitration.
(4) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) of paragraph 1 above shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of that paragraph.
3.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, this sub-paragraph applies to—

(a) any existing employee who, immediately before the transfer date, is a participant in the scheme;

(b) any existing employee who, after that date, participates in the scheme within three months of his attaining the minimum age for such particiption;

(c) any former participant who, after that date, participates in or acquires pension rights under the scheme in such circumstances as may be prescribed by regulations under paragraph 2 above; and

(d) any person who participates in the scheme in pursuance of regulations made under paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) or (ii) above.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, this sub-paragraph applies to

(a) any person not falling within sub-paragraph (1)(c) above who, immediately before the transfer date, is not a participant in the scheme but has pension rights under the scheme; and

(b) any person who, after that date, acquires pension rights under a relevant scheme by reason of the death of a person falling within sub-paragraph (1) or paragraph (a) above,

but only as respects the pension rights by virtue of which he falls within paragraph (a) or (b) above.
(3) Any person to whom sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above applies may elect in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under paragraph 2 above that that sub-paragraph shall cease to apply to him; and if any person to whom sub-paragraph (1) above applies—

(a) ceases to be in continuous employment; or

(b) voluntarily withdraws from a relevant scheme,

otherwise than in such circumstances as may be so prescribed, that sub-paragraphs shall cease to apply to him except as respects pension rights which have accrued to him before that time.
4.—(1) So much of Schedule 13 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 as has effect for the purpose of ascertaining whether any employment is continuous shall apply for the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 as if—

(a) those paragraphs were contained in that Act; and

(b) in that Schedule "associated employer", in relation to a company participting in a relevant scheme, included any oher company participating in such a sceme and any other company of which a company so participating has control, or two or more companies so participating together have control;

but regulations under paragraph 2 above may provide that no account shall be taken for those purposes of any person ceasing to be in continuous employment for such periods and in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, a company has control, or two or more companies together have control, of another company ("the other company") if—

(a) that company, or each of those companies, is a member of the other company and that company controls, or those companies together control, the composition of the other company's board of directors;

(b) that company holds, or those companies together hold, more than half in nominal value of the other company's equity share capital;

(c) a company of which the company has control, or those companies together have control, has control of the other company; or

(d) two or more companies of which that company has control, or those companies together have control, has control of the other company;

and subsections (2) to (4) of section 736 of the Companies Act 1985 (as originally enacted) shall, with any necessary modifications, apply for the purposes of this sub-paragraph as they apply for purposes of subsection (1) of that section.
Interpretation
5.—(1) In this Schedule— "Consultative Council" means a Consultative Council established under section 7 of the Electricity Act 1974 for the area of an Area Board;
"employer", in relation to a person employed by a company which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of another company, includes that other company;
"existing body" means any of the following, namely, the Area Boards, the Generating Board and the Electricity Council;
"existing employee" means any person who, immediately before the transfer date, is employed by an existing body or a Consultative Council, or falls to be treated as employed by an existing body by virtue of regulations made under section 54(4) of the Electricity Act 1974 (service as a member to count as service as an employee);
"former participant" means any person who, immediately before the transfer date, is not a participant in the scheme but has pension rights under the scheme by virtue of his having been such a participant;
"pension", in relation to any person, means a pension of any kind payable to or in respect of him, and includes a lump sum, allowance or gratuity so payable and a return of contributions, with or without interest or any other addition;
"pension rights", in relation to any person, includes—

(a) all forms of right to or eligibility for the present or future payment of a pension to or in respect of him; and

526

(b) any expectation of the accruer of a pension to or in respect of him;

and includes a right of allocation in respect of the present or future payment of a pension;
"the relevant enactments" means Chapter I of Part XIV of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (retirement benefit schemes) and Part III of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 (contracted-out pension schemes);
"relevant scheme" has the meaning given by paragraph 2(1) above;
"the scheme" has the meaning given by paragraph 1(1) above; "wholly-owned subsidiary" has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 1985.
(2) For the purposes of this Schedule, a company is wholly owned by one or more other companies if it has no members except

(a) that other or those others and its or their nominees; and

(b) wholly-owned subsidiaries of that other or those others and their nominees.

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (1) above, expressions used in this Schedule which are also used in Part I or II of this Act have the same meanings as in that Part.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 242ZB:
Before Schedule 14, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE THE SCOTTISH PENSION SCHEMES
Power to amend schemes
1.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending the Hydroboard Superannuation Fund (in this Schedule referred to as "the North Scheme") and the South of Scotland Electricity Board's Superannuation Scheme (in this Schedule referred to as "the South Scheme") for any of the following purposes, namely—

(a) for enabling members, former members and former employees of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board to participate in or acquire pension rights under the North Scheme on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed;

(b) for enabling members and former members of the South of Scotland Electricity Board to participate in or acquire pension rights under the South Scheme on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed;

(c) for requiring any persons to make payments to the trustees of the schemes in such circumstances as may be prescribed; and

(d) for securing that the schemes continue to be approved for the purposes of the relevant enactments notwithstanding the transfers made by this Act and the repeal by this Act of section 37 of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (c) of sub-paragraph (1) above, regulations made for the purposes of that paragraph may require persons not participating in—

(a) the North Scheme to make payments to the trustees of the North Scheme;

(b) the South Scheme to make payments to the trustees of the South Scheme.

(3) Regulations under this paragraph may make such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) Regulations under this paragraph may be made so as to have effect from a date prior to their making, so however that so much of any regulations as provides that any provision of regulations shall have effect from a date prior to their making shall not place any person other than the Boards or existing bodies (within the meaning of Schedule (The Electricity Supply Pension Scheme) to this Act), or their successor companies, in a worse position than he would have been in if the regulations had been made to have effect only from the date of their making.
(5) Regulations under this paragraph shall not be made at any time after any Scottish electricity company has ceased to be wholly owned by the Crown.
Protection for certain persons
2.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of securing that (regardless of which scheme an existing employee of the Scottish Boards is a participant in immediately before the transfer date)—

(a) no person to whom paragraph 3(1) or (2) below applies is placed in any worse position by reason of—

(i) any winding up, in whole or in part, of a relevant scheme, that is to say, the North Scheme or the South Scheme or any other scheme which is provided or amended in pursuance of the regulations; or

(ii) any amendment of a relevant scheme which results in benefits under that scheme being reduced, or contributions by employees being increased, and is made otherwise than in such circumstances as may be described; and

(b) no person to whom paragraph 3(1) below applies is prevented from continuing to participate in or acquire pension rights under the North Scheme or the South Scheme by reason of any change of employer—

(i) which does not affect his continuity of employment and is made otherwise than in such circumstances as may be prescribed; and

(ii) in the case of which his new employer either is a participant in that scheme or is wholly owned by one or more companies which or each of which is such a participant; and

(c) no person to whom paragraph 3(1) below applies is placed in any worse position by reason of any change of employer which does not affect his continuity of employment but prevents him from continuing to participate in or acquire pension rights under a relevant scheme;

and the references in paragraphs (a) and (c) above to any worse position shall be construed, in relation to a person to whom paragraph 3(1) below applies who, after the transfer date, ceases to participate in or acquire pension rights under the North Scheme or the South Scheme, as references to a position which is any worse than his position, immediately before he so ceases, under whichever of the schemes he is then participating in or last acquired pension rights under.
(2) Regulations under this paragraph may impose duties (whether as to the amendment of either scheme, the provision or amendment of other schemes, the purchase of annuities, the making of payments or otherwise) on persons who are or have been employers of persons to whom paragraph 3(1) or (2) below applies; and duties so imposed on any person may include duties owed to persons of whom he is not and has not been an employer.
(3) Regulations made under this paragraph may also provide for any dispute arising under them to be referred to arbitration.
(4) Sub-paragraphs (3) and (5) of paragraph I above shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of that paragraph.
3.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, this sub-paragraph applies to—

(a) any—

(i) existing employee of the Scottish Boards; or

(ii) existing employee of a Consultative Council,

who, immediately before the transfer date, is a participant in the North Scheme or the South Scheme;

(b) any existing employee of the Scottish Boards who, after that date, participates in either scheme within three months of his attaining the minimum age for such participation;

(c) any former participant in either scheme who, after that date, participates in or acquires pension rights under either scheme in such circumstances as may be prescribed by regulations under paragraph 2 above; and

(d) any person who participates in the North Scheme in pursuance of regulations made under paragraph 1(1)(a) above or in the South Scheme in pursuance of regulations made under paragraph 1 (1)(b) above.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, this sub-paragraph applies to—

(a) any person not falling within sub-paragraph (1)(c) above who, immediately before the transfer date, is not a participant in the North Scheme or the South Scheme but has pension rights under either scheme; and

(b) any person who, after that date, acquires pension rights under a relevant scheme by reason of the death of a person falling within sub-paragraph (1) or paragraph (a) above,

but only as respects the pension rights by virtue of which he falls within paragraph (a) or (b) above.
(3) Any person to whom sub-paragraph(1) or (2) above applies may elect in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under paragraph 2 above that that sub-paragraph shall cease to apply to him; and if, otherwise than in such circumstances as may be so prescribed, any person to whom sub-paragraph (1) above applies—

(a) ceases to be in continuous employment; or

(b) voluntarily withdraws from a relevant scheme and does not forthwith—

(i) become a participant in another such scheme; and

(ii) transfers to that scheme the pension rights which have accrued to him before that time under the scheme from which he is withdrawing,

that sub-paragraph shall cease to apply to him except as respects pension rights which have so accrued.
4.—(1) So much of Schedule 13 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 as has effect for the purpose of ascertaining whether any employment is continuous shall apply for the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 above as if—

(a) those paragraphs were contained in that Act; and

(b) in that Schedule "associated employer", in relation to a company participating in a relevant scheme, included any other company participating in such a scheme and any other company of which a company so participating has control, or companies so participating together have control;

but regulations under paragraph 2 above may provide that no account shall be taken for the purposes of this paragraph of any person ceasing to be in continuous employment for such periods and in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, a company has control, or two or more companies together have control, of another company ("the other company") if—

(a) that company, or each of those companies, is a member of the other company and that company controls, or those companies together control, the composition of the other company's board of directors;

(b) that company holds, or those companies together hold, more than half in nominal value of the other company's equity share capital;

(c) a company of which that company has control, or those companies together have control, has control of the other company; or

(d) two or more companies of which that company has control, or those companies together have control, together have control of the other company;

and subsections (2) to (4) of section 736 of the Companies Act 1985 (as originally enacted) shall, with any necessary modifications, apply for the purposes of this sub-paragraph as they apply for purposes of subsection (1) of that section.
Interpretation
5.—(1) In this Schedule—
"Consultative Council" means a Consultative Council established under section 7A of the Electricity Act 1947 for the district of a Scottish Board;
"employer", in relation to a person employed by a company which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of another company, includes that other company;
"existing employee of a Consultative Council" means any person who, immediately before the transfer date, is employed by a Consultative Council;
"existing employee of the Scottish Boards" means any person who, immediately before the transfer date, is employed by one or other of those Boards or falls to be treated as so employed by virtue of regulations made under section

529
54(4) of the Electricity Act 1947 (service as a member to count as service as an employee);
"former participant" means any person who, immediately before the transfer date, is not a participant in the North Scheme or the South Scheme but has pension rights under one or other (or both) of the schemes by virtue of his having been such a participant;
"pension", in relation to any person, means a pension of any kind payable to or in respect of him, and includes a lump sum, allowance or gratuity so payable and a return of contributions, with or without interest or any other addition;
"pension rights", in relation to any person, includes—

(a) all forms of right to or eligibility for the present or future payment of a pension to or in respect of him; and

(b) any expectation of the accruer of a pension to or in respect of him;

and includes a right of allocation in respect of the present or future payment of a pension;
"the relevant enactments" means Chapter I of Part XIV of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (retirement benefit schemes) and Part III of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 (contracted-out pension schemes);
"relevant scheme" has the meaning given by paragraph 2(1) above;
"wholly-owned subsidiary" has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 1985.
(2) For the purposes of this Schedule, a company is wholly owned by one or more other companies if it has no members except—

(a) that other or those others and its or their nominees; and

(b) wholly-owned subsidiaries of that other or those others and their nominees.

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (1) above, expressions used in this Schedule which are also used in Part I or II of this Act have the same meanings as in that Part.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 242A:
Page 121, line 42, at end insert—
("(iia) section 33 of the Coal Act 1938;").
The noble Earl said: This amendment will ensure that British Coal continues to seek the consent in writing of the successor companies to the electricity boards before working coal under land owned by the successor companies.
Let me explain further. The Coal Act 1938 provided that unworked coal should be vested in the former Coal Commission. Unworked coal was, of course, subsequently transferred to the National Coal Board, now the British Coal Corporation. This included coal owned by statutory undertakers, but Section 33(1) provided that coal formerly owned by a statutory undertaker should not be worked without their previous consent in writing.
Several of the area boards have significant land holdings in coal mining areas acquired before 1938; it therefore seems only right that their successor companies (which will continue to be statutory undertakers) should be consulted when British Coal wish to work coal lying beneath their land, as provided by Section 33(1) of the 1938 Act. This amendment to Schedule 14 achieves this and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 243:
Page 127, leave out lines 14 to 19.
The noble Earl said: This amendment simply seeks to remove a consequential amendment which is being separately effected by other legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 132, line 28, at end insert ("; and").
The noble Earl said: This is simply a constructive amendment concerning the use of the word "and". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 245:
Page 132, leave out lines 33 to 40 and insert—
("38. In section 159 of the Water Act 1989 (protection of certain undertakings), in subsection (3), for paragraph (f) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(f) the undertaking of any person authorised by a licence under Part I of the Electricity Act 1989 to generate, transmit or supply electricity;").
The noble Earl said: This amendment serves simply to ensure that the Water Bill currently before this Chamber will correctly reflect the changes in the electricity supply industry resulting from the provisions of the Electricity Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Schedule 15 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 245A:
Page 140, line 28, leave out ("the Generating Board or an Area") and insert ("an Electricity").
The noble Lord said: Paragraph 36(1) of Schedule 15 as drafted is limited to the property of the CEGB and the area boards. However, because the South of Scotland Electricity Board serves a small area in England around Berwick-upon-Tweed, it owns some property in Northumberland—consisting of houses, a depot and a showroom—on which it pays rates under the General Rate Act 1967. The amendment I put forward therefore extends the transitional provisions of paragraph 36(1) to include the SSEB's property. I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 246:
Page 140, line 42, at end insert—
("36A.—(1) An application or claim by an Electricity Board for hazardous substances consent which is effective on the transfer date—

(a) shall have effect as if made by the appropriate successor company; and

(b) in the case of an application or claim made to the Secretary of State, shall be determined by him notwithstanding that the land to which it relates is no longer land to which section 1B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or, as the case may be, section 56B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 applies.

531
(2) A hazardous substances consent granted or deemed to be granted to an Electricity Board which is effective on the transfer date shall have effect as if it had been granted to the appropriate successor company.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment provides transitional arrangements for certain consents. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 247:
Page 147, line 49, column 3, at end insert ("immediately").
The noble Earl said: This is a minor drafting amendment. It will clarify the drafting of a repeal of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 108 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 248:
Page 71, line 19, leave out ("Except as otherwise expressly provided").
The noble Earl said: This is another drafting amendment. It concerns the words,
"except as otherwise expressly provided",
at the beginning of Clause 108(2). These words are not necessary as all provisions of the Bill will be brought into force by commencement order as provided for in Clause 108. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 249:
Page 71, line 36, leave out ("5 of Schedule 3") and insert "3 of Schedule 5").
The noble Earl said: This amendment to Clause 108 corrects a drafting mistake in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported with amendments.

Schizophrenia After-Care Bill [H.L.]
5.50 p.m.
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I am most grateful to the many noble Lords who have supported the Bill; it does two things. It emphasises the pressing need for organised after-care for all persons who have received medical treatment in hospital for schizophrenia and it sets out procedures for how such after-care should be organised. Much thought went into the procedures which have been modified by amendment to meet
532
the views expressed by noble Lords during the Bill's passage through the House.
Some noble Lords would have liked to widen the Bill's scope, but that was not possible because of its nature. It is said that the Government have not thought fit to support the Bill so as to give themselves the benefit of a pilot study of after-care procedures which could in due course be applied more widely. Although they have not done so, I hope that the Bill will have encouraged the Government to accelerate legislation to deal with after-care as promptly as possible.
As has been said, the condition of many schizophrenic patients is disastrous. Without legislation such as I propose they escape the after-care which is available to them. In many cases the amount of after-care required has never been properly assessed. The whole purpose of the Bill is to give some basis for that to be achieved.
I should like to express my grateful thanks to those noble Lords who have supported the Bill from these Benches and from the opposite side of the House. I thank them not only for speaking but also for attending debates and, in some cases, writing to me because they were unable to attend. I hope that the Bill will have some chance of being debated in another place. Because of its procedures, that is extremely unlikely. However, there is an outside chance, and I trust that it will be given to the Bill.
In any event it is my hope that an Act resulting from this Bill or some successor which embodies it and meets the needs of schizophrenics will come about before long.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mottistone.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am standing in for my noble friend Lord Ennals who is unfortunatey unable to be here as he is keeping a conference engagement abroad which was arranged a long time ago. My noble friend would have fully supported the Bill.
I should like to express appreciation from these Benches for the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in bringing this important Bill before the House and congratulate him on the skill with which he has conducted its passage. He explained on Second Reading that the Bill is based on the proposals of the Schizophrenia Fellowship which has immense knowledge and experience of sufferers from schizophrenia and their families. I should like to take the opportunity also to express our profound respect for its contribution.
The Bill is supported by a number of voluntary organisations which have considerable experience of the defects of care within the community. Care in the community, as it is presently called, for persons suffering from schizophrenia, is often totally unsatisfactory. In some districts it is a shambles or non-existent. The Bill will be a huge step in the right direction. It has completed its passage in your Lordships' House in just under 11 weeks. At this eleventh hour, as it were, we enter a strong plea that the Government facilitate its speedy passage in another place.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that it would be of assistance to your Lordships if I summarised the Government's attitude towards my noble friend's Bill, as I have during the Bill's passage through the House.
The Government are very sympathetic to the problems faced by sufferers of schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses and also by their carers. We could not fail to be aware that there are many who feel concern about the adequacy or otherwise of services currently provided in the community for mentally ill people. Indeed, we are determined to see improvements in those services and the ways they are provided, and we have been looking at them carefully in the context of our active consideration of the Griffiths Report to which the Government will be responding very soon now.
In view of the initiatives currently being explored, the Government do not believe that this legislation is the right answer. In particular, we do not think it valid to single out one type of mental illness and legislate for its treatment on a preferential basis. Nevertheless, during its passage through the House the Bill has provided a vehicle for enabling a wide range of noble Lords to offer their views on the needs of the seriously mentally ill. Ministers have followed these proceedings with keen interest and, I hope will shortly be responding to the concerns expressed in an effective and practical way.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Restrictive Trade Practices (Sale and Purchase and Share Subscription Agreements) (Goods) Order 1989
5.54 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, In moving the draft Restrictive Trade Practices (Sale and Purchase and Share Subscription Agreements) (Goods) Order 1989 I shall speak also to the draft Restrictive Trade Practices (Services) (Amendment) Order 1989. The two orders are being considered together as their purpose and effect are the same. The only difference is that one relates to goods agreements, the other to services. The orders have to be made under different powers, which also accounts for their slightly differing form.
I must apologise to your Lordships for the fact that pages 2 and 3 of the printed version of the draft order relating to goods agreements have been transposed during printing. I hope, however, that that will not cause us any practicl difficulty during our consideration of the orders, and counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees has confirmed there are no legal obstacles to the orders being debated in this form. I apologise for any confusion that may be caused.
I should also point out that when the draft order relating to services agreements was laid for the first
534
time, counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees drew my department's attention to a technical error in the schedule to the order. Paragraphs 6(1) and 8(1) of the schedule referred erroneously to Part III of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976, a part which relates only to the exercise of order-making powers applying the Act to services agreements. They should have referred to the Act as a whole.
The draft was withdrawn and re-laid with the necessary amendments. I can assure your Lordships that those are purely technical amendments and that none of your Lordships who reads the draft as originally laid but who has not had the opportunity to read the revised version will have been disadvantaged.
The orders before the House today modify the application of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act in relation to two categories of agreements: first sale and purchase agreements, under which one or more persons agree to sell shares in a company or the whole of their interest in a business to a purchaser; and secondly, share subscription agreements, under which one or more persons agree to subscribe for new shares in a company.
Such agreements constitute some two-thirds of all agreements submitted to the Office of Fair Trading for registration under the Act. They are registrable if two or more of the parties to them accept relevant restrictions on their commercial freedom. For example, the vendors, shareholders or employees of a company being sold may undertake not to compete with the company for a specified period in order to avoid undermining the value to the purchaser of the good will and know how acquired with the business, yet the vast majority of these agreements are found on inspection not to contain restrictions of such significance as to call for investigation by the restrictive practices court. The Secretary of State is able therefore to accede to the Director General of Fair Trading's request for directions discharging him from his duty to refer them to the court. It is common in the case of such agreements for restrictions to be accepted only by the vendors or by individuals; to relate solely to the ability of such persons to compete with the business or company which is the subject of the agreement; and to go no futher than is reasonably necessary to protect the value to the other parties of the purchase or investment made.
We are most grateful to all those who responded to the consultations on the draft orders. The reaction to the orders was almost entirely favourable and a number of helpful suggestions were made to improve their clarity and workability. As a result we are confident that we have achieved an appropriate balance between the reduction of burdens on businesses and the maintenance of competition, while at the same time minimising as far as possible the degree of complexity of the proposed orders to ensure that firms and their advisers are clear whether or not agreements need to be furnished under the Act. I therefore have no hesitation in commending them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for setting out the reasons behind the Motion and these two orders. The House will also be grateful to him for apologising for the fact that the order of the pages in the printing unfortunately became mixed up. The fact that I found one of the orders upside down in the Printed Paper Office did not detract from the confusion that this caused.
These seem to be quite unexceptional orders. There is only one point that I wish to make to the noble Lord and it is this. It is perfectly true that non-competition clauses in sale and purchase agreements are standard practice where a private company is being bought, or where it is effectively being bought, or where a major shareholder is being bought out or subscribed out, if I may use that expression. It is perfectly normal to have non-competition agreements that the vendor undertakes not to engage in a practice that would be competitive to the purchaser because the goodwill of the business has to be protected. That is fine in respect of private companies and small businesses.
Can the noble Lord tell me how far this order goes? There have been occasions, most notably recently in the City of London, where immediately after a purchase a group of people who would normally be expected to abide by a non-competition clause in the sale and purchase agreement have detached themselves from the successor company and formed their own business. It has been shown that it is very difficult to prosecute those people under the contract in question and that, in the event of a major defection—we are not worried about small cases—where the good will of the business is damaged, the only recourse may be under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act.
I merely ask that question because I believe that there is a threshold beyond which the agreement should be registrable. Perhaps the noble Lord could help me by assuring me that this does not damage the good will of businesses where non-competition agreements properly should be registered with the director general to be enforced, requiring to be registered officially when the deal is completed.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, before I reach that point, perhaps I could mention something else about the order which I think is relevant to the debate. Perhaps first I could say what the position would be of the exempted agreements under existing mergers legislation. The orders we have before us will only have the effect of exempting the agreements concerned from the scrutiny under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. They will not prevent the application of the Fair Trading Act provisions to mergers underlying such agreements.
Furthermore, concerning agreements that are not within the scope of the exemptions, there is no presumption that sale and purchase or share subscription agreements not meeting the conditions for exemption as laid down in the orders will be significantly anti-competitive, merely that they require individual scrutiny by the director general on a case by case basis, using the normal processes of the Act.
536
If they subsequently turn out not to contain restrictions of such significance as to call for investigation by the court, they will be eligible, as at present, for directions under Section 21(2) of the Act. The agreements are dealt with under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976, which requires the furnishing to the Director General of Fair Trading for registration of agreements between two or more persons carrying on business in the UK in the supply or acquisition of goods or services under which certain kinds of restrictions are accepted by two or more of the parties to the agreement.
The director general is under a general duty to refer registrable agreements to the restrictive practices court for consideration of whether or not the restrictions they contain are contrary to the public interest. Section 21(2) of the 1976 Act enables the director general to make representations to the Secretary of State to the effect that the restrictions in a particular agreement are not of such significance as to call for investigation by the court. If the Secretary of State agrees, he may issue directions discharging the director general from taking proceedings in respect of the agreement during the continuance in force of the directions.
The vast majority of registrable agreements, including almost all sale and purchase and share subscription agreements, are currently dealt with in this way. Therefore the availability of remedies in contract law will not be affected by the order that we are discussing today. Registrability of the agreements does not render their enforcement any easier, so these orders should not affect the situation to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that in practice it has been difficult to enforce such contracts; and that, if there is a remedy in the sense of the RTP Act, where the director general has to refer such agreements to the restrictive practices court, that remedy should not lightly be removed if the enforcement under contract is difficult, as has been shown?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, certainly that is quite a significant subject area which is being continually discussed by the department. At the moment, however, we are dealing with this specific aspect which does not cover some of the problems that have been raised by the noble Lord. However, I take his point and I shall discuss it further with the department to see whether anything needs to be done in the future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Restrictive Trade Practices (Services) (Amendment) Order 1989
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved. [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Design Right (Semiconductor Topographies) Regulations 1989
6.10 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be very brief since, despite its complexity, the draft statutory instrument before your Lordships makes very little change to the law of the United Kingdom. Before I explain why it is necessary, I must say that I have received an apology from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who played such a great part in passing the copyright Bill when it went through the House last year. Unfortunately he had a prior engagement, but he has said to me that he totally supports the instrument and is sorry not to be here.
This instrument is necessary for two reasons. First, it is necessary to modify the regime of design protection set out in Part III of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, so that when the Act comes into force on 1st August it will conform to an EC directive on the protection of semiconductor chip designs. Secondly, it is necessary to implement a decision of the Council of Ministers to extend the protection given to semiconductor chip designs in Europe to designs from Japan, certain of the EFTA countries and the French dependencies—all of which protect European designs.
In order to achieve these results, we have had to resort to some complex legal drafting. We have, however, consulted closely with industry in the drafting process and it is satisfied with the outcome. On this basis, I hope noble Lords can agree that it is right to approve this Statutory Instrument for the purposes I have described. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for explaining very carefully what the regulations are about. As the noble Lord will be aware, when the Act was a Bill before your Lordships' House, we were not at all happy with the whole concept of design right. Indeed, we had long and intense discussions about what it really meant. Furthermore—here I come to the point of the regulations—it seemed to us to be clear, although I stood as always ready to be corrected, that the concept of unregistered design right was not one which was accepted by our partners in the European Community; in other words, this was something that we were introducing ourselves and that other members of the Community were not introducing.
On my first point I should be grateful if the noble Lord could correct me, but this is my memory and understanding of our discussions. My second point is that the design right that we have before us is, as the noble Lord says, a product of masterly parliamentary drafting in the sense that it uses the exemptions which are given in the Act to allow the Secretary of State under the European Communities legislation to vary the application of certain clauses
538
in the Act. That is something we discussed when the Act was a Bill before your Lordships' House. It gives us continual nagging worry that under the European Communities legislation, under which these regulations are laid, power is given to vary the way certain clauses in the copyright Act should apply.
Finally, the noble Lord indicated that 1st August was the commencement date for the design right provisions in Part III of the copyright Act. Does that mean that the whole of Part III will commence on 1st August, or only parts of it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, to the final part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord 'Williams, I can say "yes". The whole of the Act will come into force on 1st August of this year. I hope that after all the hours the noble Lord spent discussing the Act when it was a Bill in this House, he will regard that as being worthwhile.
I shall just state why we need to adjust the Act so soon after Royal Assent. We were always aware that an adjustment would be necessary. Indeed, we pointed to that fact in both Houses during the passage of the Bill. This was unavoidable, given the existence of the directive and the fact that international discussions on the protection of integrated circuits were still taking place. We did not feel that resolution of the longstanding and vexed questions of channel design protection in the United Kingdom should wait on developments in this one area of design. Nor did we consider that our domestic protection for designs of all kinds should necessarily follow the outcome of international agreements on integrated circuit designs, given the compromises that are inherent in agreements of that kind.
Consequently, in Part III of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, we enacted, on its merits, a regime for the protection of all kinds of designs in the United Kingdom. But we took powers to depart from this regime to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with international agreements. These powers could have been used instead of, or in addition to, those provided by the European Communities legislation. In the event, the instrument before your Lordships is to be made entirely under the European Communities legislation, as this seems the tidiest solution. It amends Part III of the CDP Act in two significant respects, and in a number of minor ways. It is the result of close consultation with the electronics industry which has told us that, while it wishes that life in this area could be simpler, it is entirely satisfied with the drafting.
I hope that that has essentially answered the point of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The net result is that we shall continue to give protection for integrated circuit designs which is fully in line with that given in the USA, Japan and the European Community, as well as in several other industrialised countries. This is important to our industry, both for the protection it gives against piracy in the United Kingdom and for the basis it provides for the reciprocal protection of British designs in other countries. Therefore, I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Will he tell the House whether the Government will continue to amend the Act by regulation? After all, the Act was passed only very recently in your Lordships' House. At the time, I understood that there could be a major amendment to the Act once the European Green or White Paper on copyright had been absorbed and possibly adopted. Are we now going to see a series of regulations like this one amending provisions to the Act in a minor way, and then another copyright Bill fairly soon in order to implement the European Green or White Paper?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that, of course, will depend entirely on what is happening at the time. At the moment there are no particular plans. But where it can be amended by regulation, we shall of course attempt to do so. After all, that is why the regulations were put into the Act in the first place.
As regards the question of a Bill in the future, I can say that at this moment there are no immediate plans to bring anything in. We shall, of course, have to see how this Act develops. It is rather early to say at the moment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I do not wish to prolong this discussion because we have no particular objection other than to the general nature of design right which, as the noble Lord knows we do not find very attractive.
However, I put in a plea that on regulations of this nature, which are non-party political, the noble Lord could achieve what apparently has not been achieved in the past, in that the Opposition might at least be consulted. In the passage of the copyright Bill we made our contribution, and we may be able to make our contribution on future regulations of this nature. If we could be consulted, I believe it would help this kind of discussion.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord's plea is noted. I shall make sure that he, or whoever is in his place on the Opposition Benches, will be consulted.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1989
6.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the fifteenth occasion on which your Lordships have been asked to renew direct rule for Northern Ireland. Direct rule was always intended to be, by its nature, temporary. Your Lordships might feel that 15 years does not have a very temporary ring about it; and I agree. However, the Government still want to see direct rule replaced with better, more accountable local arrangements. That is what most people in Northern
540
Ireland also want to see. Sadly, however, the conditions for returning powers to local institutions have not yet been achieved and that provides the need for the order before the House this evening.
Direct rule was introduced because existing local institutions had been found wanting. The Government's responsibility under direct rule must continue to be, as it always has been, to provide good government—or at least the best government which direct rule can provide. That is what we have sought to do.
Good government is a proper end in itself, but it also has its part to play in maintaining security. It does so by undermining the claim, which is always spurious, that terrorism in the Province is a response to legitimate social or political grievance. We aim, therefore, to ensure coherent and consistent government across the full range of economic, social, political and civil matters. I think that we can say, without being unduly immodest, that we can be quite proud of our progress in some of those fields.
For example, standards of public housing and health care have greatly improved. Health and personal social services expenditure has increased by over £168 million (nearly 24 per cent.) in real terms in the past decade. Spending on education has increased by £112 million (16 per cent.) over the same period. Noble Lords will be aware that over recent months we have formulated some major reforms in the field of education and hope to lay legislation before your Lordships soon. The reforms encompass the additional support we are giving for integrated education.
The city of Belfast has had a massive injection of resources; £55 million was recently allocated under its regeneration programme. Current and programmed private sector investment in the city centre now totals no less than £450 million. Nor are we neglecting the needs of other centres of population.
Economic recovery is in progress throughout Northern Ireland. The Government have provided more than £240 million in the current financial year, 1989–90, for industrial development and support sources. International confidence in the Province has been demonstrated by the new investment by Montupet and Daewoo. Closer to home, the Department of Social Services in Great Britain is relocating 350 jobs to Belfast and, we hope for more such jobs. As regards my own department, agriculture, farming income has risen by 6 per cent. between 1987 and 1988. Marks and Spencer has opened a huge new branch at Sprucefield, on a very busy route —the junction of the Al road to Dublin and Newry and the motorway to the west of the Province. In addition, Debenham's has an enormous new facility at Castle Court in the city centre. That gives some indication of the spirit and commercial health in the Province. It is spread fairly widely throughout the Province.
Even more significantly, perhaps, over the past few months we have been able to offer new help to two of Northern Ireland's enterprises. We believe that they can only find a secure future outside the public sector. I refer to the privatisation plans for Shorts and for Harland and Wolff. We have

541
concluded heads of agreement for the sale of Short Brothers to Bombardier Inc. of Canada with a substantial investment of Government funds to give the company every chance of a better future. We have also signed heads of agreement for the sale of Harland and Wolff to a management/employee buy-out team backed by two of Mr. Fred Olsen's companies.
That demonstrates that there is encouraging news on the economic front. Furthermore, in the past year the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit have promoted almost 11,000 new jobs. Unemployment, which is currently at 15.5 per cent., is still too high. However, it has been on a downward trend for the past two years. Seasonally adjusted, unemployment now stands at its lowest level for more than five years. At the end of March this year there were an estimated 29,000 persons benefiting from special employment and training measures.
Local business has also been encouraged to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the single European market. Companies are developing the skills necessary to compete in Europe, and the European Community funded Star programme will give Northern Ireland the telecommunications infrastructure it needs for efficient communications on a European and global scale.
Moving from the economy, I should like to remind the House that over the past two years the two Governments have continued their work under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. In particular, they have recently completed their review of the workings of the conference. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has published a record of developments since the conference first met. Those who criticise the agreement find it hard to demonstrate any harm which the working of the conference has done to them or to others in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, there is nothing in the recently completed review that can be regarded as an obstacle to political dialogue.
Nor can the critics turn their backs on the progress that has been made in improving security co-operation between our two countries. The agreement has helped to establish a much better relationship between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda. Cross-border security co-operation has received regular and intensive consideration within the framework of the conference. Both Governments have recently endorsed a future programme of work between the two police forces to develop that co-ordination and to increase their effectiveness in combating terrorism.
Sadly, it remains true that terrorism lies at the heart of many of the problems of Northern Ireland. Those young and misguided people who involve themselves in terrorism can never overcome a balanced policy such as the Government are pursuing which addresses the political, economic, social and security aspects of Northern Ireland's problems.
The Government are determined that the terrorists will not win. We shall be tough where we
542
have to be. But the strength of our security policy is that it is founded on principle and on justice under the law. We fight terrorism within the law because there is no other way in which a democratic society can fight it. But our success depends on public support for the security forces. They earn our undying respect and gratitude by continuing to do a very difficult job with great courage and professionalism.
We also have in place a range of measures designed to reinforce mutual confidence in the security forces and the community. First, we have improved procedures for handling complaints against the police. Secondly, there is the policy of the Royal Ulster Constabulary accompanying army patrols whenever possible. Thirdly, there is a code of conduct for RUC officers. Fourthly, there are new army procedures to ensure that, where possible, allegations by the public of misbehaviour by the security forces will be resolved with a response within three to four weeks. In the pipeline we have the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Order, which introduces new safeguards for persons who are detained for police questioning. It also includes a statutory requirement for the police to liaise with the local community. We keep under continuous review the number and nature of allegations of misbehaviour by members of the security forces.
While our policies in all these fields are to our credit, I believe that we cannot be satisfied that it should be necessary to ask your Lordships today to renew the arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland by direct rule for a further year. Despite all that it has achieved for the Province, direct rule is not, and never has been, the best option for governing Northern Ireland. Its problems cannot be settled without the fuller involvement of the elected, constitutional representatives of both communities. Their fuller involvement would make a major contribution to the process of peace and reconciliation.
The Government believe that any solution to the apparent political stalemate in Northern Ireland must lie, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place as recently as last Thursday, not in new structures, let alone in blueprints, but first of all in a willingness to discuss and to seek to accommodate different views. We can make progress only through dialogue.
In February of this year, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State invited the constitutional political parties and others to explore, with Ministers, the possibilities for progress. In a speech in East Belfast on 14th February of this year, he said:
"I hope that everybody who should respond will do so. Anybody can refuse, but that would be a great pity. It won't hurt me, as the Government will clearly carry on discharging its duty to the best of its ability, as it has done in recent years. What such a refusal would do would be to damage the Province, and deny the people the constructive leadership they deserve."
Those were words spoken by my right honourable friend in February of this year. I believe that they are ever more valuable and relevant today when we discuss what progress we believe should be made in discussions with the constitutional political leaders in the Province.
Some discussions have been taking place with individuals and groups from both sides of the community, but what we want to see now is discussion between elected representatives about issues of government. We want to see discussion with Ministers. I should stress that our doors are open. What is now required is the will of local politicians to make progress together, among themselves and with us.
We know that it can be done, and the Northern Ireland electorate knows that it can be done. The results of the local government elections suggested that the electorate had little enthusiasm for those who advocate a violent or triumphalist approach. That message seemed extremely clear. Northern Ireland's political leaders simply must not fail their voters. The vast majority of people, on both sides of the community, are looking for progress through constitutional and democratic means. I want to stress this point: there are simply no issues that cannot be raised. Common ground can be found between the parties and the Government will consider any ideas that have a chance of working. If elected representatives do not come forward to represent their constituents in that way, can we be surprised if disillusion encourages the opportunists to reach for a gun or a bomb?
The terrorist can bring only tragedy to the community. Time can fade the memory for those who are not personally involved in some of these terrible incidents, but the families do not forget. Let us take some examples: 19 year-old Joanne Reilly, who was murdered by a 1,3501b no-warning bomb; David Braniff, a grandfather in his sixties, who was murdered in front of his wife while saying his prayers; 13 year-old Emma Donnelly who was blown up while she sat beside her grandfather, who was also murdered, in his car, at the wrong time in the wrong place; eight young men, all private soldiers belonging to the Royal Anglian Regiment, were blown to pieces by a bomb as they returned from leave to duty in Northern Ireland; and this very weekend, Liam McKee, a part-time barman in his local pub, was shot dead in his mother's home, right in front of her.
It is against that background that we look to the leaders of the long-suffering and courageous Northern Ireland people. If they can show a determination to seek together a way forward, all the people of Northern Ireland will benefit. That could also mean that the Government would not have to come on many more occasions to ask your Lordships, as I must do this evening, to approve the renewal of provisions to continue direct rule in Northern Ireland for a further year. My Lords, I commend the order to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th June be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
6.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we have been reminded that about this time of year for the last 15 years Northern Ireland Ministers come to Parliament seeking approval for the renewal of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 for a further 12 months.
544
As the noble Lord explained so clearly, it was that Act of 1974 which imposed direct rule on the Province but purely as a temporary measure to meet an urgent situation. I apologise if I now repeat the primary defects of direct rule; I am sure that they will be referred to again. It substituted unamendable Orders in Council for primary legislation and therefore denied an effective role to the elected representatives in moulding legislation for the Province. It handed to the Secretary of State the sweeping powers of a colonial governor, albeit a benevolent governor. Clearly direct rule is second-best government. That is why the Act must be renewed annually until a long-term solution is worked out. But when will that be?
In a powerful speech the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, surveyed the situation as it has developed over the last 12 months. As I listened to him I had the impression at first that he was saying that, although security is still a matter of top priority and the work of the security forces is as unremitting as ever, the level of community violence is being contained. However, listening to his closing remarks, that may be an oversimplification on my part.
I also had the impression that the Government are encouraged to believe that the economy is doing well. Harland and Wolff and Shorts have been saved and the Minister points out that the infrastructure is being strengthened substantially. However, when my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton speaks to the appropriation order, which is the next business before the House, he will look at the evidence against the background of the chronic weakness of the Northern Ireland economy and the high unemployment rate of 15.5 per cent. which the Minister confirmed. It is our impression that a feeling of deprivation and hopelessness is still a fact of life for many of the citizens of the Province.
When the Minister took stock of the political situation in the Province, I had the impression that the difficulties are as great as ever and that there is a very long way to go. Usually in this debate—at least in recent years—the Minister has been persuaded on the evidence to offer a few words of modest optimism about the political prospect. I have reread the Hansard debates of the last few years and found that, four years ago, the House was told that the Government had found among the main constitutional parties a cautious willingness to talk and perhaps to move.
Two years ago the noble Lord informed us that,
"The party leaders are, we believe, also seeking a way forward through dialogue … We therefore welcome the willingness of the Unionist leaders to enter into discussions, which will need to be tentative and exploratory, without prejudice and without preconditions".—[Official Report, 9/7/87; col. 810.]
However, today that optimism, modest though it was, appears to be missing from the Minister's speech. That to me is the most significant part of it. Indeed, the Secretary of State was moved to declare in another place last Thursday that progress had been virtually non-existent in the political arena.
The inability of the constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland to make progress towards common ground means that the Act of 1974 will continue to hold the field. That result is not only

545
unsatisfactory in itself; it also helps to erode confidence in the future of the Province. It seems to me that it was not entirely surprising that politicians of quality and potential are opting out of direct involvement in the political life of Northern Ireland. That is another depressing aspect of the scene, on which I am sure that my noble friend Lord Fitt can speak with feeling and authority. Indeed, we discussed it only a day or two ago. The need for political progress among the main constitutional parties stands very high in any list of priorities if direct rule is not to become normal rule.
The Minister referred to the talks that were launched last February. Some of us are left wondering whether the Secretary of State should have given firmer leadership in those talks which began last February and have continued over recent months. They were left to a junior Minister at the Northern Ireland Office. As I understand it, the talks did not prosper. We all appreciate that every Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has an enormous burden on his shoulders. However, it seems to many of us, without any disrespect to the Minister involved, that that delicate task should not have been entrusted to an Under-Secretary. That is our judgment. Perhaps I may slip in two questions about these talks. Can we be told why they were thwarted, or is that confidential information? And are we correct in concluding that nothing was achieved by them?
Looking a little further afield, and following the survey of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, we on these Benches are gratified that, although the relations between the two governments were heavily strained during the year, the review of the working of the intergovernmental conference has been successfully completed. The noble Lord was right. Those who claim that the conference has no achievements to its credit should read the comprehensive review document that is available in the Library. I believe it to be an excellent document and it records the successes of the intergovernmental conference. Indeed, on my count the conference can take credit for at least a dozen major initiatives during the last three years. The review also points to the broad areas where there could be improved co-operation between the two governments in the future. These clearly are the areas where it would make sense to plan for the whole of the island.
We are glad that both governments have taken the point that the public should be made far more fully aware of the business transacted and to be transacted by the conference. We believe that it has suffered because of excessive secrecy in the past—a point that has often been made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. However, it seems to me that this point has now been taken on board and it has been accepted that it should be varied.
The Government's problem with the intergovernmental conference is the opposition of the Unionists to the concept, as well as the operation, of the intergovernmental conference. Sadly, this opposition remains unresolved, although even among Unionists there may be differences of view by now. If procedures can be worked out which will
546
enable members of the Unionist Party to make a contribution to the operation of the conference, we would hope that they would think again about their stand. We believe that they should. We believe that they have a special responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland to do so.
Before ending, I have a few words of appreciation and praise for the men and women throughout the Province who are working very hard indeed to improve community relations and to build bridges. To my knowledge they are supported in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, by my noble friend Lord Blease and no doubt by all Northern Ireland Members of this House. I cannot resist pointing out to the House that two educational workers involved in programmes of education for community relations and mutual understanding have been awarded the Kohl Education Foundation, International Peace Prize. They were recently in Chicago to receive the prize. They are Carmel Heaney of the Corrymeela Community and Norman Richardson of the Irish Council of Churches. We were all delighted that the St. Louise's Comprehensive School—the largest comprehensive school in Europe, situated on the Falls Road—had been awarded the Jerwood 0Award of £50,000. As I understand it, this award is considered to be the Nobel Prize in the education world. When the gifted and brave school principal, Sister Genevieve, received the prize from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, she observed compellingly,
"We believe with all our hearts that when young people begin to think that the insane violence on the streets will end, they will learn to think rather than shoot, think rather than yell and start rioting".
Those are the words of the principal.
It would be immensely reassuring if the Minister could tell the House that the pattern which has been created by Sister Genevieve and her staff is also seen to be emerging in a substantial number of schools in the Province and that it is being actively and fully encouraged by the Department of Education. As I understand it, the vehicle is there in Circular 1982/21. If such schools could have an immediate impact on their communities, we believe that there would be valid grounds for some optimism as we renew the Act of 1974 for the 15th occasion.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I was not expecting to have to speak on this subject, on which I am extremely inexpert. However, I can but raise one or two points as a lay member of the public.
I should like to thank the Minister for his clear and comprehensive exposition of the order as I know is his custom. However, there are two matters on which I should be very grateful to hear a little more from him. The first was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. It concerns activities in schools. It seems to me that the state of affairs in Northern Ireland must to a considerable extent depend upon the indoctrination of children with prejudice from a young age. If only that could be broken down in inter-sectarian, inter-school and cross-border activities it would be a great help. If the young are not got at by prejudice they will not develop it on their own. It is adults who are the cause of prejudice in the young. There must also be

547
a considerable element of vendetta presented to the young by the adults.
The other point I should like to raise with the Minister concerns the impression that I have as a lay member of the public. The only thing that the average member of the public ever hears about Northern Ireland is the terrorist versus the anti-terrorist issue and the support which the Government hope to receive from the public for their policy. I feel that the basic issues of why we are there and what we are trying to do should be made clearer to the public. I do not believe that the average ignorant member of the public, of which I am one, hears enough about that. I should be grateful to hear from the Minister any views that he has and any encouragement that he may give to the idea that the general issues could be more clearly presented to the comparatively uninformed. Those few words are all I have to say.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, if we look back over the past 20 years to the major elements of legislation under which Northern Ireland has been governed, it will be seen that quite a number of Acts of Parliament were promulgated by a Labour Government. In the 1970s the major 1973 and 1974 Acts, the prevention of terrorism and emergency provisions, and so on, were put through both Houses with an element of goodwill from the Government and the Opposition. I believe that that is the only way to try to grapple with the very difficult problem of Northern Ireland.
When the Secretary of State put forward this order in another place he referred to remarks which had been made by the shadow Secretary of State the previous year. He had criticised direct rule which he described as patronising, undemocratic, unaccountable, remote and inefficient and which, he said, had gone on for too long. That was met by a response from the honourable Member for Northampton who said, "Hear, hear".
The Secretary of State could have gone on to say that even with all the imperfections that had been levelled at it the present system was the only means of governing Northern Ireland in the present atmosphere and in the present circumstances. Both communities in Northern Ireland, the majority Unionist and the minority Nationalist, are prepared to accept, albeit unwillingly, the continuation of direct rule because their leaders cannot find a way of bringing about a devolved government in Northern Ireland.
I was not very hopeful of the Anglo-Irish Agreement having any great impact in Northern Ireland. Sadly, I see my fears, suspicions and misgivings all too readily vindicated. It has already been said in another place that the Unionist party in Northern Ireland and the Unionist majority through its leaders will not talk about a devolved government while the Anglo-Irish Agreement is in existence. The majority of the population in Northern Ireland, the Nationalists, will not talk about the possibility of a devolved government if the Anglo-Irish Agreement is not in existence.
With some experience of Northern Ireland and with some experience of the personalities involved, I believe that the attitude as expressed by the various
548
leaders is something of a red herring. I am honestly convinced now that neither the majority community nor the minority community wishes to bring about a devolved government in Northern Ireland. We attempted it. The noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, when he took office in 1979, attempted to create political discussions and negotiations which would lead to a devolved government. That was five or six years in advance of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. There was no Anglo-Irish Agreement that could have been held up as a reason for not having discussions in 1979. But the other side of the community, the Nationalist side, said that it would not enter into any discussions unless there was an Irish dimension. A bout of talks was held over a number of months and absolutely nothing came of them.
When the noble Lord, Lord Prior, took office in 1982 he did what we are now asking the Government and political leaders in Northern Ireland to accept—the bringing about of a devolved assembly. The Nationalist party at that time ignored and rejected the Assembly. The SDLP, supported by Sinn Fein, boycotted the Assembly because it thought that the basis on which it was built would not cater for its political aspirations. The Assembly staggered on for two or three years, supported by all sections of Unionism, the Alliance party and the Workers party, but the attitude of the major Nationalist party was highly predictable and it came to an end.
Since the death of that Assembly both Houses in this building have appealed to Northern Ireland leaders to do what they can to bring about a devolved assembly. One of the most instructive things seen over past months has been an attempt by certain members in both the major communities, Mr. Peter Robinson from the DUP, Mr. Austen Currie from the SDLP, Mr. Gordon Mawhinney from the Alliance party and Mr. Jack Allen from the Official Unionist party, who attended a conference in Germany. It was not a terribly high-powered conference; they were under no compulsion to agree to anything. But they found agreement on the necessity to reinstitute political structures in Northern Ireland. What happened when they came back to Belfast? The four of them were totally rejected by the leaders of their own parties, totally cast aside. That caused me bitter regret. As a former leader of the SDLP I know Austen Currie to be one of the most sincere, honest and dedicated politicians in Northern Ireland. He was rejected by his leader, Mr. John Hume of the SDLP, because he was trying to find a means by which devolved government could be brought about in Northern Ireland.
It is instructive to look at all the circumstances in relation to what has now become known as the Duisburg conference. As I found throughout my years in Northern Ireland, decisions which are taken in one year seem right in the circumstances: five or 10 years later they are seen to have been a great mistake. For example, the Labour Government in the late 1970s, in their attempts to remain in power, had a very difficult time. They had an arrangement with the Unionist party in another place. It was because of the blackmailing tactics used by the Unionist party that the decision was taken to step up a Speaker's conference. It would pontificate and

549
eventually come up with the idea that Northern Ireland should have 17 constituencies instead of 12. I was always of the opinion that if one party—be it one side or the other—held all 17 seats that would still not make for peace in Northern Ireland. Peace must and can only be found in Belfast and the other parts of the six counties of Northern Ireland.
What happened as a result of that decision? First the SDLP won three seats under the rearranged boundaries. I believe that the SDLP is quite happy with those seats. It would like to have Fermanagh and South Tyrone and Mid Ulster but with the existence of Sinn Fein it is highly unlikely that it will ever win those seats. Therefore, the decision that was taken to placate the Unionists has led to the position where the SDLP is quite happy with its three parliamentary seats in Westminster and does not wish to bring about any devolved government.
Secondly, the Labour Government—I take some credit for my endeavours at that time—created three seats for Europe under a system of proportional representation rejected for all other parts of the United Kingdom. This meant that two Unionists and one Nationalist would be virtually guaranteed seats in the European Parliament. Again, that makes the leadership of those parties quite happy. The leadership of the Unionist party, under the honourable Member for North Antrim, and the leadership of the Nationalists under John Hume, are happy with two seats; one in Europe and one in another place.
There is absolutely no incentive for either of the two leaders to engage in talks or negotiations leading to the creation of a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland. They are quite happy because there are 17 elected representatives in the UK Parliament. One representative does not attend but the other 16 take their seats and participate in the affairs at Westminster.
In any great political debates which take place in Northern Ireland the spotlight of the television cameras and newspaper reporters are focused on those 17 elected representatives. If there were to be a recreated Stormont that media spotlight would be immediately focused there and the Stormont elected representatives would be running down the Ormeau road to talk on the BBC and Ulster Television news and network. There is absolutely no incentive. We continue to try to make ourselves believe that there is a valid reason why there cannot be inter-party discussions with the intention of bringing about a devolved government in Northern Ireland. The fact is that the leaders do not want that.
The only two political parties in Northern Ireland who have shown an interest in bringing together the two communities have been the Alliance and the small Workers' parties. There are some serious and dedicated men in both parties. As has been said by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, it is a sad commentary that men of the calibre of Austen Currie and John Cushnahan recognised that never in their lifetimes would there be created structures in Northern Ireland which they could attend. They eventually realised that there was no hope of political progress in Northern Ireland and there were no seats
550
to which they could be elected. They took the big decision, pulled up their roots and went to the Republic of Ireland. Fortunately, the two of them have been elected.
It is a big step for an Irishman in the North to take in leaving Northern Ireland and going South. It is as big a step as it would be for an Irishman living in Belfast to come to this country or to go to Tibet. However, it was a decision that they had to take. I feel saddened that Austen Currie has left Northern Ireland because it can ill afford to lose men of such calibre.
I remember when the Act was introduced. We were told in the corridors and through the usual channels that it would last only a year or two at the most. All the temporary legislation has become permanent. In introducing the legislation the Minister said that he was glad to come to the Dispatch Box and say that there had been no murders in the previous four weeks. The Loyalist murder gangs made sure that that statement: could not be repeated because they murdered Liam McKee the next day.
I believe that a great responsibility now rests on the shoulders of the senior elected representatives in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that they can continue to listen to the persecution complex which they push, blaming everyone for their evils. They will not legislate or make it easy for us because, as I have repeatedly said, the solution to the Northern Ireland problem cannot be found in London, Dublin or Washington. It must be found in Belfast.
Fifteen years ago I never thought that I would be standing, particularly in this House, listening to a further promulgation of this order. I recognise that it has many defects. But with the defects that it may have it is the best and only solution that will be accepted reluctantly by both communities in Northern Ireland. It behoves all sections of elected representatives and political figures in this House to support the Government in attempting to govern Northern Ireland in the interests of all its people and to ensure that the men of terror are erased from society in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it is with great ignorance that I should like to ask the Minister one question on the subject. It is in connection with shared schools and the education of Protestant and Catholic children together. I realise that it is a delicate question to ask the Minister, but I understand that when it was first attempted some years ago great difficulties arose because of the attitude of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. In some cases they refused to confirm Catholic children who had attended shared schools. It is probably too simple to put the matter in this way and I do so only because I am ignorant. It has always appeared to me that in the long run shared schools can provide at least a useful stepping stone towards peace in the next generation, if not in this. What is the present position? Is it easier to have shared schools? What is the attitude of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, because obviously that is of great importance if the system is to develop?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this apparently innocuous order. It comes to this House at least once a year and this is the sixth occasion on which I have had the honour to present it.
I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Baroness. It is the fourth time on which I can remember her attending and asking questions on matters of general interest in Northern Ireland. I shall reply to her as far as I am able and as far as is tactful. Although I am of a particular religious persuasion it would be wilful of me to attempt to interpret the feelings, thoughts or practices of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. However, I shall do my best, if not on my feet then later in writing.
I believe that we are all particularly grateful for the opening comments of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. He was concerned that there were too many orders and not enough Bills. I believe that he is quite right. That tends to be the overall feeling of the Government and indeed has been the feeling of your Lordships for perhaps as long as 15 years. However, I was most interested in one or two of his ideas, particularly as regards my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I believe that the noble Lord said that he has almost colonial powers. Whatever powers my right honourable friend has, I hope that he uses them in a wise and reasonable way.
I believe that the noble Lord and all your Lordships will appreciate that Northern Ireland is absolutelty unique. All of us who have some responsibility in the Province learn more the longer we serve there. We are very grateful for the noble Lord's kind words about the documents which we published following the review of the workings of the intergovernmental conference. I am afraid that I do not necessarily agree with him about the political scene in Northern Ireland, but of course one man's view may not necessarily be the view of one's neighbour as regards the shifting scenes. However, I assure the noble Lord, and indeed your Lordships, that my right honourable friend takes a particularly close and personal interest in the prospect for political progress and he has taken a very close interest in the discussions which have taken place.
The noble Lord asked one or two questions about the tactics for those talks. Without fear of reproach, I believe that we may call them the "Mawhinney round". It is reasonable for my right honourable friend to deploy his ministerial forces as best he can and the talks carried out by my honourable friend the Member for Peterborough have been very fruitful and much appreciated.
The discussions carried on by my honourable friend have not been thwarted—which was the theme suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. They are certainly continuing quietly and in confidence. I am sure that all of your Lordships would agree that that is an essential requisite of any talks in Northern Ireland. We always hear a great deal in the quasi-tabloid press about megaphone diplomacy. Many of your Lordships will know that one or two of the political leaders in Northern Ireland are not known for understanding the "piano" end of the pianoforte and tend to use
552
the other end. Certainly even those political leaders are able to speak and have discussions with my honourable friend, as well as with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, but in confidence. We hope that others will come forward to talk to Ministers. Certainly we do not forget that until recently politicians in Northern Ireland were preoccupied with the district council elections, and, indeed, some have been very much preoccupied with the European elections. However, that period is now over and I have no doubt that those discussions will continue.
Those of your Lordships who study activities in Northern Ireland will know that summer is high. Certainly as regards agriculture, people's minds are turning to the peak of summer work. Of course there is also a unique phenomenon in Northern Ireland which is known as the marching season. Therefore, political discussions will continue during this period of the year, but those discussions may or may not be coloured by various activities taking place during the summer season.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was rather concerned about some of the legislative procedures. Of course, as a method of legislating, Orders in Council are unsatisfactory. It is for that reason that existing procedures provide for very extensive consultation in Northern Ireland on most orders—I hope on all orders—and certainly, if desired, for debate in the Northern Ireland committee, which provides a focus in another place for further discussion of these measures. However, I appreciate and take on board the difficulties presented by unamendable Orders in Council. That is why I and my colleagues in another place have offered, and indeed still offer, to talk about any of these issues with all interested parties in Northern Ireland and elsewhere and to consider all suggestions, which we believe in the main will be constructive.
The noble Lord also raised questions about the economy and Harland and Wolff. I believe that he said that there was still a feeling of what he called "deprivation and hopelessness". I am sure he meant that in a constructive sense. Perhaps I may just take one aspect, as it will affect many people in Northern Ireland whom I believe the noble Lord had in mind. Unfitness levels in housing in Northern Ireland—these are unfitness levels universal throughout the United Kingdom—have fallen from 14 per cent. in 1979 to just over half that in 1987. The urgent waiting list for the housing executive has been reduced by a half since 1981. We have a long way to go, but financial investments and other efforts in that sphere mean that we are not losing the battle. I hope that the people whom the noble Lord had in mind appreciate that, although they may believe that there is a great deal more to be done, which we accept.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked about talks. As I said in my opening remarks, progress in those political talks can come only if the parties are prepared to discuss a way forward in a flexible manner and with a degree of determination in order to reach an agreement. We are always ready to play our part, but I believe that many of the discussions need to be conducted in confidence.

553
Occasionally I have thought that there is an element of the great ceremony which takes place in Luxembourg, known as the Echternach wine dance, where they take three paces forward and two back and the dance takes all day. Of course in the history of Northern Ireland that is a twinkling of an eyelid, but I believe that progress is being made and that is the only way to do it.
The noble Lord concluded his remarks with his views on community relations. Once again I wish to add my praise to his for Sister Genevieve and her 2,500 pupils at St. Louise's Comprehensive, and we should not forget the teachers and staff at that excellent school. There is no lack of effort and encouragement from the Department of Education, as well as from my right honourable friend the Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made one or two notable comments, perhaps in a note of pessimism. However, the Government will continue discussions in the way that we feel will bring about some progress in this approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, raised two points with which I have a great deal of sympathy. His remarks no doubt strike a chord with many people in Northern Ireland and certainly with my honourable friend responsible for education, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I will pass on his comments. If I can produce a reply from my honourable friend, I shall write to the noble Lord.
The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will be read with great interest by politicians both here and in. Northern Ireland. It is unlike him to have such gloomy conclusions. But he is always realistic and I am sure he will agree that, if the political leaders are not interested in devolution, as he set out, we should be most interested to learn what they do want. That is the rationale behind our continuing discussions. Certainly the political leaders in Northern Ireland have told us—and it is on record—that they are interested in devolution. They are also interested in political progress. The third side of the triangle appears to be their interest in talking together. But we should like to hear directly from both sides of the community and their political leaders. We believe that the best way forward is to allow these discussions to continue in confidence and discretion.
The noble Baroness referred to integrated schools. This subject is very much in our minds. However, parents certainly have a strong say in how schools should be run in Northern Ireland. I do not want to suggest what is in the minds of the Roman Catholic hierarchy or to delve into it. I recall reading some of the comments mentioned by the noble Baroness about one member of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and his views on whether some children attending an integrated school should or should not receive the sacrament of confirmation. I have only seen what I suspect the noble Baroness has seen. I have read one or two other views but I have nothing concrete to go on. If I can adduce something which I can release to her in reasonable confidence I shall certainly do that.
554
As far as I am aware, there are seven maintained integrated schools in Northern Ireland. There is of course one well known college for older boys—Lagan College. These seven schools receive the vast bulk of their financing from government sources. That is a start. However, integrated schools and integrated education must be at the will of the parents. Seven schools is no mean start and we shall have to see how far that will proceed.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, is it not the case that more and more parents belonging to both traditions are anxious that their children should have access to integrated education?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, that is true, but it is a somewhat slower process than might be thought when the noble Lord says "more and more". If the number of schools I have mentioned were to double over the next two or three years, that could be seen as progress, but we have to take each step as it comes. I certainly know that my honourable friend responsible for education has made this a high priority.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned seven schools. What sort of percentage of children does that represent? Are we referring to 2 per cent., 15 per cent. or what?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness. I believe that the figure is in the region of 2 per cent. but it might be more. My accountancy training does not assist me too much on the total population of schools in Northern Ireland in regard to primary, infant, secondary and up to sixth form colleges. I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness with a figure for the number of pupils and in percentage terms accurate to one decimal place. As I said, Lagan College is the one well-known example for Belfast.
I have been much encouraged by the remarks made by your Lordships and I am grateful for the support that has been given not just to me but to the programme that we have set out in this order. I would be the first to say, for the sixth time, that this order is not perfect but for the reasons given in my opening remarks we believe that it is the best vehicle that we have at present. For that reason I commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
7.27 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The draft order authorises the expenditure of £2,195 million in addition to the £1,669 million voted on account for 1989–90 by your Lordships on 13th March this year.
This gives a total voted cash provision for Northern Ireland departments of £3,864 million for the current financial year, 1989–90. Noble Lords may wish to refer to the right hand column of page 6 of the estimates—the heavy volume that we have before us. It is at this point that I take your Lordships on a tour of this volume. No doubt you will have questions to ask but the stopping points I have chosen are those which I felt reasonable, relevant and interesting in reviewing this volume. The estimates are, of course, available in the Printed Paper Office.
These draft appropriation orders cover the voted element of Northern Ireland public expenditure, which totals some £4,951 million. That can be found at the bottom of page 6. These estimates do not cover law and order, which is dealt with under separate estimates arrangements. Before I go through the main components of the estimates I should like to mention one or two aspects of the Northern Ireland economy. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, advised me that this might be of some interest to his noble friend the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and I look forward to hearing his comments on these estimates and other aspects.
Your Lordships will no doubt join me in welcoming the continuing improvement in the position of the labour market in the Province. Unemployment continues to fall. The underlying trend during the six months to May 1989 shows a reduction on average of 600 per month in the numbers unemployed. That means 600 more persons employed every month. That is some cause for satisfaction.
The upward trend in employment is a continuing one. In the first quarter of this year there were an additional 6,400 employees compared with 1987. Moreover, growth in employment has been accompanied by growth in output. The latest figures indicate that output of production and manufacturing industries in the Province increased by 6 per cent. and 7 per cent. respectively between the fourth quarter of 1987 and the fourth quarter of 1988. These figures provide some encouraging evidence of an improvement in the economy of Northern Ireland.
I should like to turn to the estimates presented in the volume before us in alphabetical order, beginning with my own department, the Department of Agriculture. I believe that agriculture is the most important aspect of Northern Ireland. That view is vociferously aired by many people and surprisingly in the city of Belfast. The net provision sought in the two agricultural votes amounts to some £141 million.
Page 28 of the estimates volume, Vote 1 of the Department of Agriculture, covers expenditure of some £36 million on those national agricultural and fisheries support measures which apply throughout the United Kingdom. This aspect includes expenditure on new measures under the recently introduced farm and conservation grant schemes and the farm woodlands scheme. We also include under D4 on page 31 a provision for the new beef special premium scheme. This scheme, which is fully pre-funded by the Intervention Board, is
556
administered at farm level in Northern Ireland. It will be complemented by the enhanced premia under the suckler cow premium scheme. That is a scheme which is in existence in Northern Ireland, for which we are grateful.
Vote 2 on page 34 of the estimates seeks provision of about £105 million in respect of the continuing regional agriculture, fisheries and forestry services and support measures. This vote covers agricultural, scientific and veterinary services, for which some £43 million is provided under section A on page 34, together with provision for arterial drainage, fisheries and forestry sub-programmes. I am delighted to tell your Lordships that farmers have responded very positively to the investment opportunities provided by the new Agricultural Development Programme which we began last year. Provision is being made under C3 on page 37 of almost £14 million in the current year to meet the build-up of commitments under this scheme, This programme is of immense value. At least two-thirds of the queries raised by farmers whom I have visited in the Province, concerned what the Government are doing about this particular ADP, as they call it. It is up and running and we have the figures before us this evening.
On page 42, Vote 1 of the Department of Economic Development appears. This covers the Industrial Development Board (IDB), industrial support and regeneration. Under subhead D1, page 44, some £93 million is set aside for selective financial assistance to industry. In the main this is aimed at the creation of jobs in manufacturing industry and tradeable services, and at strengthening the marketing, quality, design and research and development capabilities of industry in Northern Ireland. Your Lordships will be pleased to note that IDB had another record year in 1988–89, achieving 5,653 job promotions. One third related to new inward investment projects, which would account for 1,800–1,900 jobs.
Vote 2 of the DED covers other economic support measures. That is shown on page 46. Under subhead B1, page 47, over £65 million of the £109 million sought is to provide assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. There are no guesses as to which two enterprises those will be aimed at. On page 47, under subhead B1, paragraph 2, we are seeking just under £60 million—in fact the figure is £59·981 million —to provide assistance for Harland and Wolff. This sum is to support the company in the period before privatisation as well as, we hope, to meet part of the costs of the management buy-out which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in another place on 22nd March this year. This provision in the main estimates does not take account of the full costs of the privatisation package in 1989–90. Further provision for Harland and Wolff will therefore be sought at the supplementary estimate stage when the phasing of the package for privatisation and the total estimates requirement for the current financial year will be finalised. I hope your Lordships will be hearing from me this year on that aspect.
Subhead B1 on page 47 relates to the sum of £5,300,000 for Short Brothers plc. This sum is in

557
support of grant aid to the company for the current financial year as well as to defray the costs of professional advisers who were engaged by the Department of Economic Development. Your Lordships will be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State approved a heads of agreement on 7th June this year for the sale of the company to Bombardier Inc. of Canada. This disposal will require substantial further amounts of Government funding. We have not yet settled the phasing of that funding. The additional provision required in the current year will therefore be brought before the House by way of supplementary estimates. I am sure that your Lordships will understand that the complexity and timing of the privatisation measures for Harland and Wolff as well as for Short Bros. and the requirement for European Community approval have meant that we are unable fully to define the implications in the current year, 1989–90, in these main estimates. Once again, we shall be bringing the details before your Lordships as soon as we can.
On page 47, at Vote 2, we find that the LEDU (Local Enterprise Development Unit) requires an allocation in A1 of nearly £30 million to meet this year's job promotion target of about 5,500. In the past financial year, as I have mentioned, LEDU promoted in excess of 5,000 jobs, bringing the total number of jobs promoted since the unit was first formed 18 years ago in 1971 to 40,000. In the context of Northern Ireland, and I believe in any context, this is a particularly creditable performance and we ought to pay our tribute to those men and women who have worked so hard to achieve this.
Page 51, Vote 3, states that £140 million is sought for labour market services. This vote covers a very wide range of measures, including the encouragement of enterprise, the provision of training and work experience, and a variety of labour market support services. Thirty-seven million pounds is required for the youth training programme under subhead A1 on page 52. This will provide a total of approximately 14,000 training places. This will ensure that the guarantee of a training place for every unemployed young person under 18 is met.
On page 53, more than £6 million is sought for the job training programme, which parallels the work-based training element of Employment Training in Great Britain. This programme will expand to 2,000 places during 1989–90 and provide a further 500 training places within the "Making Belfast Work" programme. These jobs are especially appreciated by and valuable to the young men and women involved.
On page 54, under subhead C1, we seek more than £50 million for the action for community employment scheme, to provide an average of 10,000 jobs over this year. The scheme gives the long-term unemployed an opportunity to re-enter the employment market by providing temporary jobs, of up to one year's duration, on work of community benefit. On pages 56 and 57, noble Lords will see the priority which the Government attach to the promotion of equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland. The Fair Employment Bill will
558
provide a stronger framework within which the new Fair Employment Commission will operate and provide a new stimulus to employers to take positive steps to promote equality of opportunity. That concludes my remarks on the Department of Economic Development. I wait with interest to hear what noble Lords have to say on that aspect.
In Vote 1 for the Department of the Environment, on page 67, some £153 million is sought for roads, transport and ports. On page 68, under subhead A1, the sum is required to provide for the construction and improvement of roads and bridges. Your Lordships will accept the importance of transport infrastructure if the Province is to meet the problems and overcome the challenges to be created by the opening up of European markets in 1992.
On page 75, Vote 2 for the Department of the Environment covers expenditure on housing. The figures are considerably greater: £220 million is required, mainly to provide finance for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and for the voluntary housing movement. Noble Lords will appreciate that substantial inroads have been made into Northern Ireland's housing problems, to which I alluded during my remarks on the previous order, but the Government accept that more needs to be done. This is reflected in the significant resources which are being made available for the current year. When net borrowing by the housing executive to fund its capital programmes, and rental income and capital receipts are taken into account, gross expenditure on housing will be almost £545 million in 1989–90.
Vote 3 for the Department of the Environment, on page 79, covers water and sewerage services, for which around £94 million is sought. It is worth mentioning that on page 85, £101 million is sought for environmental and other services in Vote 4. This expenditure is directed primarily at improving the economic health and environment of areas suffering from urban dereliction. One important element of this policy is the encouragement of partnership between government and the private sector, particularly through the urban development grant scheme, under which each £1 of public money generates approximately £3 of private finance. That is more than evident in Belfast city centre as well as elsewhere in the Province.
We also seek, on page 102, £750 million for the Department of Education's Vote 1. Recurrent expenditure on the schools sector, which has elicited some interest from noble Lords, accounts for more than half of the total provision for education. The salaries of 18,700 school teachers and more than 2,300 further education lecturers for the academic year beginning next September are major items in Vote 1.
On page 103, the provision of £279 million under subhead A1 for recurrent expenditure by the five area education and library boards represents an increase of 9 per cent. over last year's figure, and includes an extra £7 million for the maintenance of buildings. There is also a special injection of £4 million to improve standards of pro vision in the classroom. The education votes also include £4 million of the additional £30 million made available over the next three years for Northern Ireland's

559
progamme of educational reform. This will enable a start to be made on the provision of additional accommodation and facilities and schools to prepare for the demands of the new programmes of study as well as on in-service training for teachers—the continued training and upgrading of the capacity of teachers. We include also approximately £3 million to the "Making Belfast Work" initiative.
In Vote 2 for the Department of Education, a total of £141 million is sought for higher eduction, other services and administration. Some £109 million under sections A and B covers expenditure on Northern Ireland's two universities, the Open University and teacher training. Grants to the universities and awards to students are based on the principle of maintaining parity of provision with Great Britain. Noble Lords may wish to note that within this vote, under subhead E6 on page 113, almost £3 million is set aside for the initiative to help promote community relations in Northern Ireland. That aspect interested a noble Lord earlier.
I turn now to health and personal social services, on page 120, where provision of £836 million is sought in Vote 1 to maintain and improve the standard of the Province's health and personal social services. Within this total, under subhead A1 on page 121, £686 million will be allocated to the four health and social services boards which are responsible for the delivery of these services. Under subhead A2, still on page 121, £37 million is sought for capital expenditure. This will permit the continuation of a substantial programme of major and minor works, including the new area hospital at Antrim and completition of the new block at the Mater Hospital, Belfast. We will commence work on the construction of a new geriatric unit at Londonderry and on the extension of regional cardiology services at Belfast.
In my last stop in this tour through the estimates, I turn to page 134 and the social security programme. We seek some £807 million in Vote 4. Of this about 40 per cent.—£342 million—is required under subhead B1 for income support and for payments into the social fund.
Those are the elements which excited my curiosity as I went through this volume. I hope that noble Lords will have borne with me as I described them. I look forward to hearing noble Lords' views. I shall try to answer any queries either tonight or in writing. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we appreciate the care and the diligence the Minister has shown in doing his homework. He will feel as we do, that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to be reminded of the manner in which the Government care for the various matters that need to be dealt with. We have a rundown of expenditure for Northern Ireland. It is not a complete balance sheet because there is income in the form of taxes, receipts and revenues to be taken into account. However, in this order we are dealing with expenditure of billions of pounds. The Minister was right to take 22 minutes of the important time of
560
this House in order to tell the world, and especially the people of Northern Ireland, that there are some good things to say in this connection.
We on this side of the House have no hesitation in recognising the enormous burden which is carried by Government Ministers in seeking to discharge their responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland and to their Government. Indeed, for about an hour before this debate, we had a most useful reminder of the backcloth and the raison d'être for so many of the problems and the anguish of Northern Ireland at a political level. However, the purpose of this debate is examine the nitty gritty. We must find out the gaps, if there are any, between the aspirations—laudable as they may be—of the Government and the reality on the ground.
I should like to begin by using as an analogy a speech made by the Minister's ministerial colleague, Mr. Peter Viggers. He made the speech when he addressed the members of the Londonderry Rotary Club. It is entitled, "The Future of the Northern Ireland Economy". This is the language which he felt able to use when speaking to that distinguished body. He said:
"New computer-based technology—with the automation of so many processes—is also rapidly transforming the nature of the manufacturing processes, radically altering industry's skills, research and marketing needs. Economics of scale are being revolutionised. The life-span of products is rapidly decreasing, with new approaches and fashions proliferating. Continually the pace of change is increasing. At the same time the service sector has rapidly developed, with new work patterns and approaches. Some of it is the natural development of more traditional skills and markets, such as fast-food, but in other areas such as photocopying and data handling growth is coming from formerly undreamt of technologies".
That is the way in which a Minister felt able to describe an aspect not just of government policy but also of the economy of Northern Ireland.
Pehaps I may at this stage tell the House how another important body, the Northern Ireland Economic Council, was able to describe broadly, and give their views on, the same situation. The council issued a press release on 9th June of this year. It says:
"Northern Ireland remains the most economically depressed region in the United Kingdom and has lagged behind the rest of the country in experiencing an upturn in activity. The rate of improvement of almost every economic indicator in the Province has been below the national average.
"Looking ahead to the coming year the Council anticipates a less buoyant performance by the local economy. The expected slowdown in the United Kingdom as a result of the tightening of monetary policy in response to rising inflation and the balance of payments defict will present major difficulties for the Province. As a consequence the Council expects only modest growth in the economy with employment levels remaining largely static and falls in unemployment levelling out during the course of the year. The report stresses the vulnerability of the Northern Ireland economy to any downturn in the level of national economic activity and emphasises the need for concerted efforts by the Government and the private sector to consolidate the gains which have been achieved."
Neither body is straining too far. Indeed, both bodies have the deep interest of the people of Northern Ireland at heart. The Minister has prime responsibility for generating activity; that is, not as regards himself, but as regards government measures. However, here we have another view of broadly the same situation. While the Minister tried

561
to take some solace from the falling levels in unemployment, the falling—that is, the proud local figure at present—still leaves 15·5 per cent. The figure is enormous. It is less than it was; but it is still enormous. Further, when one looks at the position, 19 per cent. of the male working population is unemployed.
Can the Minister tell us—if not, perhaps he will write to me—what is the scenario in respect of low paid, low skilled, part-time female employment? Surely the Minister is aware that there is a world of difference between an adult male working full time and, for instance—with no disrespect—a female working part-time, both of whom are a statistic in the employment register.
When the Minister talks in terms of the privatisation of Shorts—indeed, he will know that privatisation of industries is an anathema to many of my colleagues on this side of the House; but that there are special circumstances in Northern Ireland which we acknowledge—can he tell us what has emerged over the past few months, and what will emerge in the next few months, in respect of the likely effect on employment following privatisation of the company? For instance, could this lead to further job losses, especially in the highly skilled area?
We know that there are such things as confidential assessments, private conversations, and so on. However, just as the Minister is proud to tell the world that this is a further example of privatisation, we are entitled to ask what that means to the people who live in Belfast. Will there be a spin-off which they will certainly not like?
The Minister paid special attention to the improvement in the economy. However, let me return to what Mr. Viggers told that conference just two weeks ago. He said:
"The reduction in tax levels and the outright abolition of several taxes have once again created the incentive to work, the opportunities to save and freedom of choice in spending, and indeed the chance to pass one's wealth on to one's family. Through the major extension of share ownership and the sale of council houses many more families have been given a genuine stake in their home, their jobs and their community".
You can say that again to the tens of thousands of people who live in Northern Ireland!
I wonder whether the Minister would care to tell us what are his observations as regards the debt register in Northern Ireland. He knows, of course, that consumer debt is increasing alarmingly. However, that is not just a Northern Ireland phenomenon—it is not perhaps even a British phenomenon—and there are very worrying indications that the ordinary person is getting more and more into debt.
For example, I am told that in Northern Ireland £338,369,000 is owed to the finance houses; £268 million is owed to the banks in outstanding personal bank loans; and £100 million is outstanding on credit cards. That is a time bomb which the Minister and his colleagues must recognise. But what are the Government doing to tackle the problem of consumer debt in Northern Ireland? Is that something which the Minister and his colleagues
562
shrug off as a phenomenon of the British Isles? I am asking a genuine question here. Is the problem more worrying in Northern Ireland than it is anywhere else? It is certainly present in the Province and needs to be tackled head on.
The Minister quite rightly drew our attention to certain situations as regards housing. I thought the Minister was saying that, difficult as it was, there are improvements. Will the Minister set that statement against the state of the housing stock in Northern Ireland? It is about the worst in any region in the whole of the British Isles. Therefore more must be done in Northern Ireland than in many other places.
I have had access to extracts from the Northern Ireland 1987 House Condition Survey. It can be compared with the 1986 English House Condition Survey. The extracts show that in Northern Ireland 8·4 per cent. of the dwelling stock was found to be unfit, compared with only 4·9 per cent. in England. Further, 5·5 percent. ofNorthern Ireland stock lacked at least one basic amenity, compared with 2·5 per cent. from the English survey. I cannot talk in terms of thousands, tens of thousands or more, but that is the nature of the problem. I visit Northern Ireland infrequently. The Minister virtually lives there and knows more about the situation than anyone in the House except my noble friends Lord Fitt and Lord Blease, who are worried about the position.
I referred to debt a moment ago. As more and more people are encouraged to buy their own homes, more and more people find their homes being repossessed due to economic circumstances. The Belfast Law Society tells me that in 1984 there were 69 building society orders for possession. In 1987 the figure had grown to 241 and in 1988 it had grown to 308. That is a 446 per cent. increase since 1984 and a 27 per cent. increase between 1987 and 1988. I wonder whether the Minister is worried by that trend. What are he and his colleagues doing about it?
I wonder whether the Minister can say something tonight about two problems. One is the Carrick House Hostel in Belfast. I have read some documents which have caused me concern. That hostel is one of the few, if not the only one, of its kind, in Northern Ireland which deals with homeless men. Will the Minister tell us a little more about homelessness in Northern Ireland? I genuinely seek the information. The situation is horrific. In London more and more people are being made homeless from a variety of circumstances, some of which may well be self-inflicted. Will the Minister tell us what he is doing about homelessness in Northern Ireland?
I have received some information from the Carrick Hill Residents Association. The document is signed by Marie Mulholland, the community development officer. It makes hair-raising reading. It is about the attitude shown by the people in charge of the hostel to those people who unfortunately have to use it. Will the Minister tell us a little about housing associations in Northern Ireland? I have evidence about what is happening to the Clonard Housing Association. The document makes disturbing reading. I shall read a brief extract of what I have been told:

563
"The Clonard Housing Association is a non-profit-making concern. It is the only community based housing association in West Belfast, the most highly populated area in the city. West Belfast has enormous opportunities for growth for the Association. There are a lot of vacant sites and derelict buildings which are ugly, dangerous, degrading and demoralizing. The Association sees its role in changing this image, in acquiring these vacant sites to provide modern housing, derelict building could be rehabilitated, provide much needed housing, and thus enhance the areas involved and give a sense of pride to the community. The Association has been established over 11 years and has not yet been able to undertake a new build scheme".
There must be something wrong with the raison dêtre of the association, or the impetus of the people in charge. If not, there must be some other reason. The document continues:
"The Association's stock is as follows:—34 tenanted properties, 2 bricked up properties, I vacant property requiring work before it can be tenanted, 37 vacant sites".
Those sites have been acquired over the years to enable a number of schemes to be progressed. We should take on board the fact that the existence of a large stock of vacant land is of concern to the association because those vacant sites contribute greatly to the air of decay and neglect in the area. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Fitt knows the association and the area. He knows the problems and he may know some of the solutions and some of the reasons why we are not making progress. Without using too heavy a stick with which to beat the Minister, surely such a situation needs detailed investigation by him.
Finally, I should like to say a word about health. I know we had the benefit of a similar debate which took place in another place two or three nights ago. My parliamentary colleague Mr. Marshall dealt in detail with a number of points. It would be an exercise in futility if I read the same case into the record. I have the Minister's observations in response to my colleague. I believe that he and his advisers would have anticipated that I would raise these matters. My honourable friend drew attention to the number of acute beds that had been closed which were of great concern to him. Mr. Peter Viggers said:
"The hon. Gentleman also asked about bed closures in hospitals. During the past year the Eastern health and social services board has closed a number of acute beds, but that is in line with targets in the regional strategy for 1987 to 1992".
What kind of strategy is it that closes acute beds at a time of crisis? Can the Minister tell us that? Mr. Viggers then said:
"The hon. Gentleman asked about theatre closures at the Belfast City hospital. The recent theatre closures are a temporary measure"—
will the Minister tell us how temporary is temporary?—
"brought about by a nursing shortage that arises from sickness and unexpected difficulties in recruitment".
What is the position? Although shortages occur, they must be tackled with great vigour. The Minister then said:
"The hon. Gentleman commented on hospital waiting lists".
We are of course all concerned about those. His answer was:
"The Department has recently had discussions with four health and social services boards about the validation and medical management of waiting lists and waiting times".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/89; col. 589.]
564
The people on the waiting lists, their families and their friends may be fed up with consultations and discussions. They want the beds, the doctors and a redress of their problems to be provided.
I conclude by saying that it is the duty of the Opposition not just to draw attention to ministerial statements, which the Minister will properly see have a full and wide circulation in Northern Ireland, but to let the people in Northern Ireland know that we are obliged to bring their grievances to the attention of a place which they believe is here to help redress the balance. On the other hand, we acknowledge the great difficulties that the Minister has, not only on these matters but on a wide range of others. We feel good will towards him and his colleagues in their efforts to solve the many problems that I have outlined.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the concluding remarks of my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton are of great significance because he, as a former elected representative, will be acutely aware that there is no substitute for being an elected representative and being in almost daily communication with one's constituents. One has only to read the reports of the appropriation debate that took place in another place to see that the everyday contact between an elected representative and his constitutents is all important. I marvel at and am grateful to my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, who does not have a Northern Ireland constituency. It is quite evident that he has gone to a great deal of research to establish and maintain contact with people in that part of the United Kingdom. I agree almost word for word with the comments he made here this evening. Many of his remarks have been garnered from areas which he may not know such as the Clonard housing association in the heart of the constituency which I formerly represented, West Belfast.
West Belfast is generally recognised as one of the most socially deprived areas in the United Kingdom in the fields of housing, employment and all the other priorities which affect the Northern Ireland constituency. Unfortunately, West Belfast is represented by Mr. Adams, an MP who does not participate in the mechanics of the House on behalf of his constituents. The ordinary people of Belfast who are so desperately in need of representation are denied it because of the political consequences and the situation in that region. Because of those political consequences now and in the future, I cannot see that constitutency being represented by any other person.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, commenting on previous remarks that I made, said he thought that I was being rather pessimistic. If "pessimistic" means being realistic, then I plead guilty. I am realistic towards events happening in Northern Ireland and what has already been referred to in respect of the housing association. I remember the housing association of Clonard coming into existence. I also remember making representations on its behalf and being told by people from that area that I had to be very careful of some of the personnel involved in that association. I am not sure whether the same

565
people are there now, but I agree that it is up to the Government to query the personnel of every association throughout Northern Ireland. There is a real need to listen to the representations of an association in such a difficult area as West Belfast.
Since we last debated an appropriation order in the House, two major industrial decisions have been taken: the proposed privatisation of Harland and Wolff and of Shorts. These two companies have long been regarded as the linchpin of economic activity in the city of Belfast. It is necessary to consider not only the employees of the two different industrial undertakings, but also the spin-off from those undertakings which reaches throughout the whole of Northern Ireland. The manufacture of component parts necessary for those industrial establishments to carry on creates employment in other parts of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland and Wales. So it is of vital importance that the Government do everything in the change-over period to ensure that no obstacles are placed in the way of those industries continuing in existence, even under privatisation.
A very valid question has been asked by my noble friend Lord Graham. Can the Minister tell us what the prospects are for future employment? How many personnel are employed now? Will there be a reduction, or will the figure be maintained? It would be of interest to the people working in those industries, who are now going through a very insecure time, to have an indication of whether or not their employment will be secure.
Again, my noble friend Lord Graham mentioned one point known, I am certain, by anyone from Northern Ireland or who has contact with it. Northern Ireland, even through the most terrible times, has always prided itself on having the best hospitals in the world. It also prides itself on what I know is the best medical profession in the world; it has the best nurses in the world. That is no mean claim. But it is supported by every section of the Northern Ireland community.
It is very sad to read of the closures which are taking place, particularly at the City Hospital in Belfast, where theatres which are urgently needed have been closed down because of a shortage of nursing staff. Perhaps the Minister does not have the figures at his fingertips, but I have never heard of a shortage of nurses in Belfast. I know that many young girls have regarded it as a vocation, throughout decades, to become members of the nursing profession. Indeed, I have two daughters of my own who began their nursing careers in the City Hospital in Belfast. I find it a very sad commentary that there has been or will be a shortage of nurses. If that is so, why has it been allowed to happen? I am certain that many young girls who are dedicated to the vocation of nursing would do everything they could to take employment in that profession.
If there is one thing which united the elected representatives in another place when the appropriation order was debated, it was the concern which they expressed in relation to the rationalisation of schools which is taking place,
566
particularly in South Down, North Belfast and other areas. It appears that the proposals by the educational library boards were announced as something of a bolt from the blue. The parents who were sending their children to the schools were met with these proposals without any consultation having taken place. One would have thought that the present Minister in charge of education in Northern Ireland, Dr. Mawhinney, who has a Northern Ireland background, must be aware of the great concern as to the religious content, the sectarian content, the siting of the different schools, the distance of one school from another, and the replacing of schools. These issues are of vital concern to parents whose children attend the schools.
I have been inundated with letters from all over County Down about the proposals envisaged by the Department of Education in relation to the so-called rationalisation of schools in County Down. That is particularly so in the Downpatrick area, with the impending closure or loss of status of the Down High School. I have received letters from throughout Northern Ireland, not only from people with children attending these schools, who in this case happen to be Protestant, but also from Catholic people living in the area who support the concerns expressed by the parents of these students.
We know that if there is rationalisation then it means closure, whether of jobs, houses or schools. The people of Northern Ireland are no fools. I hope that before any real steps are taken to implement what has already been mooted as the idea of the department, the parents of children at these schools are brought into the consultations. Education is most important, particularly in the circumstances prevailing in Northern Ireland. To bring about difficulties in education for the sake of saving money will, I believe, in the long run, be the wrong thing for the Government to do. I appeal to the noble Lord to have consultations with his honourable friend and to ensure that before any steps are taken, the views of the parents of the children attending the schools which are threatened with rationalisation or closure are sought.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am not startled at the very interesting and close attention that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, paid to the detail, and to what some kind friends may call diligence, of my remarks. However, I apologise for the length of my opening remarks.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, there is no need to apologise.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as always the noble Lord has some very kind things to say. I appreciate that very much. Nevertheless, while I apologise to your Lordships for perhaps going into too much detail, I know the diligence with which noble Lords go through these accounts.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised a number of points. I am particularly grateful to him for all the nice things he said about those of us who serve in government in Northern Ireland. I add my tribute to those in the government service, not least those

567
in my own Department of Agriculture who work throughout the length and breadth of Northern Ireland for the benefit of agriculture and, it seems, for the benefit of many people in the Community. I also add my tribute to the courageous and long-suffering people of Northern Ireland, whom I mentioned at an earlier stage this evening. I pay tribute to them for their fortitude in all aspects of life in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord made great and very entertaining play on a particular speech that was made by my honourable friend the Minister who is responsible for industry in Northern Ireland. I particularly enjoyed one or two of the points made by the noble Lord about fast food in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, and indeed his noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, may remember that food is the number one aspect that concerns many of us in Northern Ireland, not least those in the Department of Agriculture. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will know, there are certainly quite a few stout farmers but very few stout farm workers. Those farm workers work extremely hard to ensure that our food and agricultural industry is second to none.
The noble Lord raised further points. I shall attempt to answer them all, but I may have to answer some of them in writing. The noble Lord mentioned employment and industry in Northern Ireland. I think the overall climate, despite the figures mentioned, is something for optimism. A French company called Montupet, which is regarded as one of the world's leaders in the field of aluminium castings, and is particularly prominent in the motor industry, announced in December 1988 its decision to establish a highly automated, state of the art aluminium foundry in West Belfast, and a toolroom facility in the city suburbs. The foundry is situated in the former Kingsway industrial estate. Moreover —this is far more familiar to your Lordships and students of Northern Ireland—the foundry is situated in the former De Lorean premises. This will provide employment for some 920 people over a five-year period. However, that project is starting from absolutely nothing.
The toolroom will be built on a site at Mallusk in County Antrim towards the airport. It will provide further employment for 110 persons. The investment by this world leader will be in the region of £80 million. That, together with the other very encouraging investment by the Korean company, Daewoo, is no mean tribute to the workforce in Northern Ireland, let alone to what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been able to do in selling the talents of the people of Northern Ireland around the world. He has had two notable successes. We realise that the world is a competitive place. All of us in Northern Ireland who are concerned with economic health and, above all, with the economy of Northern Ireland, realise that we have to compete on a world basis. However, I believe that we are in no way losing this particular battle. We intend to ensure that the economy goes forward as far as we are able to take it.
The noble Lord quite rightly asked about Shorts. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, also mentioned this. However, on the matter of Shorts and the new
568
developments which have taken place as a result of the agreements which have been signed with Bombardier of Canada, no one in your Lordships' House, let alone any businessman, would expect us to make any firm and meaningful assurance about future levels of employment. That would be something for Bombardier and Shorts to consider. However, any assurances and any possibilities for employment in Shorts will depend upon the ability of Shorts to produce competitively priced products at a profit. We think there is a strong possibility that this will happen, and I believe Bombardier is very optimistic also. We are confident that, under the ownership of Bombardier, Shorts will be able to continue to produce products which are already being produced, although no doubt new products will be introduced. I believe a new regional jet is scheduled to be produced by Bombardier, and that Shorts will have a major part to play in that, as well as in some of the more technological areas.
Redundancies may be necessary, although we are not sure about that. They may be necessary in order to return the company to profitability. The Government will assist Bombardier to meet the full cost of any redundancy. However, that is a matter for Bombardier. I wish to stress to your Lordships that the Government stand ready to help Bombardier as well as Shorts as far as we possibly can. We wish them well. I believe that everything that is being done by my right honourable friend, as well as by my honourable friend the Minister responsible for industry, is geared to launching the Shorts-Bombardier combination in the very best way possible.
As regards some of the queries of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I shall have to reply in writing. The noble Lord seemed a little worried about some aspects of the debt problem. As regards private debts, for example the level of hire-purchase debts and commercial debts, I shall have to write to the noble Lord. There are some special problems associated with public debt in Northern Ireland. We have certainly tried to deal with all of this sympathetically as well as firmly. However, I shall provide the noble Lord with figures to illustrate the scale of public debt, as well as indicating our approach in trying to reduce that figure.
As regards debts in agriculture, farmers tell me that they, like businessmen everywhere, are concerned that their debts may be difficult to service. That is a common factor in agriculture throughout the United Kingdom. I believe the agricultural industry is making great progress. That progress depends upon the weather to a large extent. Certainly in all aspects of my work in Northern Ireland, I am particularly aware of private commercial debt, as was referred to by the noble Lord.
On the matter of the housing stock, I cannot necessarily quibble with figures mentioned by the noble Lord. As regards unfitness and other matters, they may be in step with the figures he referred to for England and Wales. I agree that the figures are too high. However, one of the main instruments for tackling housing unfitness is renovation grants. In the current year, 1989–1990, the amount for spending on this is £30 million. The high demand

569
for this particular grant continues, and alas! it exceeds the funds which we have available.
The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has had to restrict some applications to those in the high priority categories as regards fitness. Nevertheless, the 1987 mini house condition survey in Northern Ireland indicated that since 1984 there had been a significant reduction in the level of unfitness and disrepair. In January this year we introduced changes which provided for an increase in the maximum amount of eligible expense limits in the various categories of renovation grant. That is a partial answer. If there is anything that I have missed, I shall write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord mentioned the Carrick House hostel and the achievements of the Clonard housing association in 11 years. I shall have to write to him with any details that I can obtain. The only aspect of Clonard that I know is the monastery, to which your Lordships may wish to confine me, but rather like St. Augustine, perhaps not yet. We know that they do particularly valuable work there.
The noble Lord also had some queries about acute hospital beds and mentioned what my honourable friend Mr. Viggers said in another place on an earlier occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, also raised the issue of medical services and hospitals in Northern Ireland and in particular in Belfast. The closure of theatres in the City Hospital is a matter for concern. I stress, however, that those closures are a temporary measure brought about by a shortage of nurses. The noble Lord mentioned that the main problems are sickness and unexpected difficulties in recruitment. I do not believe that that is a complete answer. Care and treatment of patients are very dependent on the skill and diligence of nurses, and it occurs to me that the application of technology is relevant. There are new and swift methods of treating acute cases. I suspect that in some instances where there have been difficulties in recruitment it is not a case of difficulty in recruiting nurses but in recruiting nurses with the skill to operate some of those incredible, high-tech, ultrasonic machines used in emergency cases and intensive care.
Those closures are of concern to people who depend on the City Hospital for treatment. The normal theatre nursing complement of 62 has been reduced to 47, with the result that there are only four theatre teams at present instead of the usual six. Normally there is one team to cover each of the six theatres. The six theatres are used in rotation at present; no theatre has been closed down. We hope that a fifth theatre nursing team will be available in two or three weeks and that a return to the usual six teams will follow in the near future. However, I believe that the introduction of a fifth team in two or three weeks is commendable progress. While the noble Lord may not be totally satisfied, I hope that he will accept that that is encouraging news.
The noble Lord also mentioned one or two comments made in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Viggers, the Minister responsible for economic development. Within the past year the Eastern Health and Social Services Board has closed
570
a number of acute beds. The closures are in line with targets in the regional strategy for 1987 to 1992. I have been assured that the number of patients receiving treatment continues to rise, reflecting a more efficient use of the resources available. I hope that that may be of some comfort to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord also asked about the waiting lists. To people who require treatment of non-acute conditions—for example, people with orthopaedic problems, as I experienced in my youth—it is of no comfort to have to wait for treatment of injuries which may be recurrent and troublesome. We give very high priority to action to reduce the time which people have to wait for treatment. The Department of Health and Social Services has recently had discussions with the boards for health and social services about the validation and medical management of the waiting lists together with waiting times. Waiting time is more important to the patient than the length of the waiting list. In September 1988 about one-third of patients had been on the in-patient waiting list for one year or more. That figure has remained fairly static since 1981. If there is any further detail which may be of help to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I shall let him know in writing.
However, I stress that acute hospital services in Northern Ireland compare favourably with those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We have allocated a further £1·5 million in the current financial year for the development of regional medical services, including ophthalmology, trauma, orthopaedic and cardiac surgery. I hope that that sum of money will provide treatment for a considerable number of patients to whom speedy attention will be particularly welcome. If there are any points that I have missed which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised I shall pick them up.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, raised the question of the two large industries in Belfast—Harland and Wolff and Shorts. We should not wish to place any obstacle in the way of their continued economic health and recovery. The noble Lord also said that he believed that in Northern Ireland we have the best hospitals, medical teams and nurses. What I said to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, with regard to theatre closures is also relevant to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt.
With regard to education, the noble Lord mentioned rationalisation. I shall not seek to duel with him on that aspect, let alone about Down High School and Downpatrick. I shall write briefly to him. If he wishes to raise any further points with regard to the letters which have been flooding in to him, I have no doubt that he will be in touch with me.
The noble Lord raised a point about the education reforms which are being instituted by my honourable friend Dr. Mawhinney. The draft Order in Council which would give effect to those proposals was published for consultation on 13th June. Consultations will extend until mid-September this year. I believe that that is an appropriate time for the teaching profession since they will not have the pressure of exams and the summer and autumn tend to be a time for reflection in the education year. I

571
believe that, if we set our minds to it, that consultation will be valuable, but I take any point that the noble Lord wishes to raise on the matter.
We recognise that implementation of the reforms will require adequate resources. In my earlier remarks, I mentioned that we had made an additional £30 million available for community education over the next three years. Above all, a tranche of about £4 million is included in the estimates that we are considering this year. Those resources, in addition to the high level of funding that we already provide for education, will meet a variety of needs, including extra in-service training for teachers as well as extra specialist accommodation and equipment.
I do not think that there is anything that I can usefully add to what I have said, but, if there are any points raised by noble Lords that I have not covered, I shall write to them. I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for the very nice things that he said about me and, above all, about my right honourable friend and my honourable colleagues. We appreciate the constructive questioning that is carried out by both noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Graham, as well as that by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. We very much relish the attention that is paid to the orders by Members of this House and are grateful for it. I am sure that it is recognised and appreciated by everyone in Northern Ireland.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before nine o'clock.