Lords Sitting of 22 June 1990

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Post Office: Sunday Collections
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
In what districts the Post Office has now started a system of Sunday collections.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I understand that the Post Office has now started a system of Sunday collections in 50 of the 63 postal districts. Those postal districts where Sunday collections are not yet in operation are Brighton, Canterbury, Chelmsford, the City of London, Croydon, Milton Keynes, North-East London, North-West London, Paddington and Harrow, Romford, South-East London, South-West London and Tonbridge.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that his list does not indicate that among the districts excluded are Reading and Newbury? Those of us who live in the area are not enjoying the benefit. Can he clarify the matter?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can only tell my noble friend what I have been advised; and that was reflected in my Answer. If there is a difficulty in Reading and Newbury perhaps my noble friend will allow me to look into the matter.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that it would be better for the Post Office to concentrate on delivering first-class mail on the next working day after posting rather than concentrating its attention on the distraction of Sunday collections?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope that it will concentrate on both issues.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, has my noble friend been advised about when Sunday collections will start in London?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that the Post Office hopes to have Sunday collections implemented everywhere in the United Kingdom by autumn this year.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware of press reports indicating that the delivery structure of the Post Office is under serious review? Is it the case that the Post Office intends to cut out
1168
the early delivery and have only one later morning delivery?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not aware of any plans to reduce the number of deliveries as suggested by the noble Lord. However, if I am mistaken I shall write to him.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the Minister explain why there are no week-day collections in the NW8 district where the post-boxes have again been blocked up and locked owing to unofficial industrial action?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there are still staffing difficulties in the London districts including, I fear, NW8. For that reason most of the areas to which I referred where Sunday collections have not yet begun are in London; and the Post Office is making a special effort to correct the situation.

UK-Fiji: Relations
11.8 a.m.
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current state of relations between the United Kingdom and Fiji.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, relations are good.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that commendably brief Answer. Is he aware that I was invited to meet the Prime Minister of Fiji during his recent visit to this country and that he is particularly anxious that the excellent relations between Great Britain and Fiji should continue? Can my noble friend say what is being done to promote more trade between Britain and Fiji? What is the situation as regards sugar and the interchange of students and technical personnel such as engineers?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as a result of the visit of the Prime Minister of Fiji to my right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher in March 1988, British technical co-operation was increased from £1 million to £1·5 million in order to allow for extra help in the medical sector which had been depleted by the migration of trained Fiji-Indian doctors. The first members of the United Kingdom-recruited team arrived in Fiji in February 1989. My noble friend will be aware that the principal problem now confronting the Fijians is the agreement of their new constitution. I suspect that progress on most of the other issues to which he referred will depend upon the conclusion of that problem.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, the Minister will know that there have been great difficulties as regards Fiji and that they will continue. Can he say whether the Government are in touch with the Governments of India, Australia and New Zealand to ensure that there is not a recurrence so that in future Fiji can continue to play its proper part in the Commonwealth?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Indian authorities recently had to withdraw their diplomats from Fiji and that did not help the matter to which the noble Lord referred. We attach great importance to our relations with Fiji. However, as the noble Lord will know, its membership of the Commonwealth lapsed following the military coup in Fiji in 1987.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what is the Government's attitude towards the present Government of Fiji, a military government who overthrew a democratically-elected government three years ago? Are we giving aid to Fiji? Have we offered to train its armed forces? Are we making representations to the Fijian Government to hold free elections so that once again Fiji can enjoy a democratic government? Is that not the heart of the matter? Is not the Minister giving the impression that we are seeking to be too friendly with a dictatorial government?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that that is the heart of the matter. There was a military coup in Fiji in 1987. Since then the military officer concerned has "returned to his barracks", to use the time-honoured phrase. There is now an interim civilian government who are moving to seek agreement on a new constitution which will, inter alia, provide for democratic elections. The United Kingdom is supporting that process. In the meantime Fiji's membership of the Commonwealth has lapsed because of the introduction of the military government. However, it will be entitled to re-apply once it has completed the proper democratic processes.

St. Thomas's Hospital: Facilities
11.13 a.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there are adequate facilities at St. Thomas's Hospital for babies requiring intensive car.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is a fast developing area of medicine. What were termed neonatal intensive care cots in 1979 bear little relationship to cots and their associated equipment today. However, experience has shown the number of neonatal intensive care cots at St. Thomas's Hospital to be adequate to meet most demands. On rare occasions, because of short periods when staff are not available or because there are unusually high numbers of babies requiring intensive care, there may be a need to seek cots elsewhere.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am very surprised by the Minister's statement concerning St. Thomas's Hospital. Is she aware of the recent statement by Dr. Anthony Kaiser, who is consultant for the special baby care unit at St. Thomas's Hospital, that babies are dying because London's hospitals are underfunded and understaffed? He said:
1170
"We have only about half or two-thirds of the intensive-care cots needed for London and the surrounds.
Some of the babies die, some hang on in less equipped units",
and some have to be flown to other parts of the country. He is in charge of the unit.
Is that not a deeply disturbing situation? Is it not disturbing that the Minister holds a contrary view to that of the person who is responsible for the unit?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am aware of the press comment to which the noble Lord referred. There is an unpredictability about demand for those facilities. As I have said, on rare occasions babies will have to travel some distance for treatment. However, the facts are that infant mortality rates are improving. It has to be said that many more babies are being treated successfully today who would not have survived only a few years ago. We are not complacent, as I think the noble Lord was implying. We are acutely aware of this area of medicine. Research and development continues. Most health authorities, in particular that for South East Thames, have positive plans to develop that service.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there have been major cutbacks in expenditure in St. Thomas's which are partly responsible for the situation that I have brought to the attention of both your Lordships' House and the Minister? Does she really believe that such cutbacks do not indicate complacency? Does she deny the statement that babies are dying as a result of the situation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that the whole area of health spending needs to be put into perspective. Since 1979 waiting lists are shorter by 7 per cent. More patients are being treated; the figure has increased by 22 per cent. Infant mortality is down. Resources have risen since 1979 from £8 billion to £29 billion. There are more doctors, nurses and specialist units than ever before. We are not complacent. We believe that there is much to be done. However, the reforms will create an even better framework within which to build on the success of the NHS. They include better planning and better management. I believe that they will prevent the lurching from crisis to crisis that we have seen under the present situation.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, is the noble Baroness denying Dr. Kaiser's statement? Perhaps we can have that clear. Dr. Kaiser says that St. Thomas's needs four more intensive care cots to stop patients being turned away and babies dying. Is the noble Baroness denying the statement?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not denying the statement. I believe that the reference is to press comment. It is not part of my duty to respond to that. I am aware that more cots are needed in the area. I have just said that the health authority in question has positive plans to develop the service.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is

1171
engaging in his usual practice of shroud waving? We have discussed the problems of St. Thomas's Hospital in this House many times, and the difficulty that it has had in living within its budget. It is deplorable that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, should engage in this shroud waving activity.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's comments. Stories that rely exclusively on death do nothing for public confidence. They cause needless anxiety to patients and it does no service to those who care for the patients.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, will the noble Baroness explain to her noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich that his constant denigration of attacks on St. Thomas's is not in keeping with the spirit of co-operation that I understand his right honourable friend the Secretary of State desires in the National Health Service; and that it does no credit to the noble Lord or to the hospital of which he is a distinguished consultant?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that my nobel friend Lord McColl puts what we are talking about in perspective, which is most valuable. I believe that he is a stout defender of the National Health Service.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, do the Government agree that it is right for Members on this side of the Chamber, and occasionally Members on the other side, to call the attention of the House by way of example to what is happening in the National Health Service? I am sure that the Government will agree that every one of us could cite examples of lack of resources available to the National Health Service from our own localities. It does the House no good to denigrate those people who give examples which reflect the total lack of resources and the need for increased resources in our National Health Service.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my comments were aimed at those who spend their time exclusively talking about the negative aspects of the National Health Service and who pay no credit whatever to its success.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the difficulty arises chiefly because as medicine advances so the demand on resources increases beyond our capacity to meet it? Does she also agree that to ignore that basic fact and to point out everything that goes wrong in this huge service does immense disservice to both the medical profession and the health service of this country?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those comments. St. Thomas's Hospital is in the forefront of pioneering research in maintaining babies for longer periods in their mother's womb, so that when they are born their weight is greater, they are more robust, and that eliminates or reduces the need for intensive care unit facilities. My noble friend is therefore absolutely right.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there has been no time during the past 42 years, during the life of the health service, when it would not have been possible to bring before your Lordships examples of the kind given today? I do not ask my noble friend to agree that nothing should be brought forward, but it may be helpful if good cases as well as bad cases are advanced so that we can thereby put the argument in balance.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. We must not be complacent, but it is a matter of perspective and that is important. I am also reminded that a few days ago the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, said that there would be no moment in time when the resources that are available, however generous, could be enough to meet all the demands of the people of this country.
Lord Annan: My Lords, may I bring two good cases to the attention of the noble Baroness? In the past two years both my daughters gave birth to babies in St. Thomas's Hospital. Both births were extremely complicated and required caesarian re-section. No praise could be too high for the staff of that hospital, and I need hardly say that both operations were successful.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again I am grateful for those comments. I am more than happy to join with the noble Lord in his great praise for the staff of that hospital.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that I have never denigrated the staff of St. Thomas's Hospital because I am the chairman of the Department of Surgery of both St. Thomas's Hospital and Guy's Hospital. The nurses and the doctors do a particularly fine job of work. It is the financial control that is the problem.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am more than happy to agree with my noble friend in those comments. The people who are denigrating the National Health Service are those who concentrate exclusively on the negative.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I deeply resent any suggestion that my approach to the National Health Service is negative? I have been involved with the National Health Service for over 20 years on one side of the House or another. I am involved with countless medical organizations; I am president of the College of Occupational Therapists, and so forth. My approach is very positive. Tomorrow I am presiding all day at a conference which I convened on co-operation—My Lords, I am being attacked. I am defending myself and I have a right in your Lordships' House so to do. Tomorrow I am presiding at a large conference on co-operation in the National Health Service.
Is the noble Baroness aware that I have the greatest respect for St. Thomas's Hospital and feel that I have a responsibility? If those who are working there believe that their ability to serve their patients is undermined by what the noble Lord, Lord McColl,

1173
calls "financial control" I have a responsibility to bring that matter forward. This Question concerns evidence that people are dying. Is there anyone in this House—the Minister in particular—who feels that it is not right that I should raise it in your Lordships' House? Where else should I raise it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I would never deny the noble Lord's right to bring these matters to the attention of the House. My criticism concerned getting the right balance in the debate. The noble Lord has been highly condemning of a record of which we can be proud; that is, that waiting lists are shorter; more patients are being treated; more resources are being put in; infant mortality is down and there are more specialist units than ever before. There are also more doctors and nurses. A little credit for that record would not go amiss.

NHS Waiting Lists: Cardiac Patients
11.24 a.m.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as has been suggested by some independent consultants, the length of waiting lists for the treatment of heart complaints under the National Health Service is so long as to endanger lives; and if so, what action they propose to take.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord is referring to press reports of a private study made by Mr. Michael Joy, consultant cardiologist at St. Peter's Hospital, Chertsey. The report of this study has not yet been seen by the regional health authority. We remain determined to tackle long waiting times for all forms of treatment. The Government's special waiting list fund of £19 million over four years has enabled hundreds of thousands of extra patients to be treated from the waiting lists.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware, reverting back to the previous Question, that those figures given publicly by Mr. Joy, the consultant cardiologist at St. Peter's Hospital, Chertsey, indicate that a study—not press reports, not tittle-tattle—of 1,000 patients over 10 years found that 23 of them died unnecessarily on the waiting list because they sometimes had to wait 18 months for operations?
I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that that is a totally unacceptable and tragic situation. My Question was not to give ventilation to those figures, deplorable and tragic though they are; but to ask what should be done about them. The noble Baroness did not answer that part of the Question.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the specific Question on the Order Paper refers to "some independent consultants". I believe that the particular consultant referred to is not independent, but is a paid member of the health authority. I referred to the waiting list
1174
initiative, which is designed specifically to meet the issue of people spending too long on waiting lists.
I said that waiting lists were down, but we must not be complacent. A huge amount of work is going on. John Yates and his team are going round the country looking to see why the waiting lists are long, and then ensuring that some positive action, including resources, is applied to bring those lists down. There are some notable successes. The Mersey region has been very successful in reducing its waiting lists after a visit from Mr. Yates and his team.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the report of the Health Education Authority published last week showing that deaths from heart disease in areas such as Manchester and Leeds are more than double the national average? When can those of us who live in those areas expect some Government initiative to put the figures in balance by bringing our figures down and not the southern half of the country's figures up?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. He is emphasising the need for preventive medicine. Enormous strides are being made by all health authorities, which believe that a good use of resources would be to do more in the field of preventive medicine.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that from 1950 to 1964 I was chairman of a hospital management committee? During that time we had no knowledge of hip replacements, heart transplants or indeed heart complaints in that sense. There has been such an advance in medical knowledge since 1964 that it has overtaken everything that is going on. People are waiting now for that which they never waited; they just died.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am again grateful to the noble Lord for those comments. They touch on some of the answers that I gave to the first Question. The advance of technology has meant that people are not dying because they are on waiting lists; they are being saved when they otherwise might have died. Again, it is a matter of perspective.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I, and I am sure many other noble Lords, feel that it is a great pity that we are no longer allowed to die of natural causes?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in response to my noble friend I may say that I was almost tempted, as a tailpiece in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, to say that despite all the education and all the research we still drink too much, smoke too much and do a great deal that we know will shorten our lives. The noble Lord argues for freedom; I believe that debate will continue.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, of course it is true that there has been marvellous progress in medical science and in the health service during successive governments over 40 and more years.

1175
However, is the noble Baroness aware that except during and immediately following industrial disputes the waiting lists and the waiting times in the National Health Service are higher than they have ever been since the National Health Service was created? Is she also aware that both Dr. Kaiser to whom I referred, and Mr. Michael Joy, consultant cardiologist of St. Peter's Hospital, Chertsey, in Surrey, told a conference of doctors last week that they expect the situation to become worse, not better, after the reorganisation of the National Health Service?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to industrial action. Clearly that does nothing at all for waiting lists other than exacerbate them. On the second part of his Question, I agree to differ with those who believe that the reforms will not make for a better National Health Service.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, has the noble Baroness seen the later part of Mr. Joy's remarks in which he said that a quarter of the patients about whom he was complaining—people on this long waiting list—were referred to private hospitals where they were seen within two or three weeks? None of the private patients died. Can we really be satisfied with this great gap between private provision and what is on offer in the National Health Service?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again, the noble Lord has gone back to press comment. He read from reports in the press regarding the consultant concerned. The Independent chose to give prominence to that case but refused to print a letter from the health authority which would have put the figures in perspective.
I can say that the health authority concerned is not complacent about these matters. It is doing much to address the problem of treating people more quickly and effectively. Therefore, given that we do not live in an ideal world, much is being done by the health authority and hospitals themselves to improve the situation.

Business of the House: Debates, 28th June
11.31 a.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This is a procedural Motion in order to allow the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to have his Motion referring to the draft Education (Student Loans) Regulations taken before the actual Motion for approval of the regulations themselves. It has been agreed through the usual channels that the substantive debate on this subject should take place on the noble Earl's Motion and that the regulations themselves thereafter be moved formally if the House feels it right that they should be approved. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with to enable the
1176
Motion standing in the name of the Earl Russell to be taken before the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Blatch on Thursday, 28th June.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Relations between the Community and EFTA: ECC Report
11.32 a.m.
Lord Aldington Lord Aldington rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Relations between the Community and EFTA [14th Report, HL Paper 55].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this report is based on an inquiry that began just before the Christmas Recess and lasted until mid-May. It included the taking of evidence from a number of distinguished witnesses, a visit to the headquarters of EFTA in Switzerland and to Berne to meet members of the Swiss Government. I express the warmest thanks of my colleagues and myself to all who helped us with evidence and guidance. I thank my colleagues on the committee for their constant devotion to our task and the remarkable tolerance shown to their chairman. All of us pay tribute, not for the first time, to the sub-committee's clerk. This House is much blessed by the fine quality of the Committee Office clerks.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lords who will be speaking in this debate, many of them no doubt at some inconvenience because it is a Friday and because we were not given much notice. I observe that the working hours of your Lordships' House appear to be moving up towards 46 each week when other people are claiming that they should work for only 38 hours a week. I am particularly glad that my noble friend the Minister is able to be here to speak after me despite the fact, as I know, that he has a full list of commitments today. I know also that he has one very important engagement which will take him from the Chamber after he has spoken and I am sure that your Lordships will share with me a full understanding of his need to leave us.
The House will be aware that the process towards improving the trading relationship between the Community and EFTA countries from the original free trade area arrangements was begun at Luxembourg in 1984, which set up the idea of a European Economic Space, as it was called. Some people call it a European economic area. However, that agreement provided for the process of advance to depend upon individual discussions, negotiations and agreement on individual items and did not lead to quick enough progress.
The movement to start a further stage in these relationships was given new momentum by the speech of President Delors to the European Parliament in January 1989, which was welcomed

1177
by the Ministers of the EFTA countries in Oslo in March. Following further discussions sufficient common ground was identified to envisage the possibility of negotiations leading to an overall European Community/EFTA agreement covering the four freedoms of the single market; that is, goods, services, capital and persons, and including what were called flanking policies. Among those were competition policy, research and development, environment, consumer protection, working and social conditions, and education.
The starting point for the negotiations was agreed to be the rules, regulations and law developed by the Community on the matters to be covered. That is called, in the jargon of the Community, the Acquis Communautaire. On 19th December 1989 Ministers of the Community and of EFTA agreed that exploratory negotiations should start. The proposed agreement for a European Economic Space was not to cover the common agricultural policy, a customs union or tax harmonisation.
It was at that point and on the basis of a communication from the Commission dated 23rd November that our inquiry began. We realised at the outset the importance of the goal of a wider single market, adding to the single market of the Twelve the markets of the six EFTA countries—six has become seven now we talk about Liechtenstein—which together formed the largest trading partner of the Community. It may not be known by all noble Lords that since 1986 the Community has exported to the EFTA countries more than it has exported to the United States of America and Japan combined. However, there are still barriers to trade, incomplete freedom of the services, of the movement of capital and also of persons. The Community's competition rules and other rules against protection do not apply to EFTA. Nor is EFTA able to count on the four freedoms in its relations with the Community. There would be gains for all the countries involved in a wider single market, including Britain. The freedom in financial services offered obvious opportunities for Britain, as does the removal of barriers to trade and fairer competition in goods.
While it appeared at first that the EFTA countries had the strongest wish to make a success of the negotiations so as not to be left out of the new single market, it soon also become clear that the Community had as strong a political will to make a success of them, to widen their opportunities and to strengthen their relations with their Western European partners. However—and this was accepted at the outset by EFTA—the Community insisted (we thought rightly) that it must keep its own autonomy of decisions and that nothing should be agreed which would weaken its power or deflect its efforts to complete the single market and to carry on its progress towards closer unity.
That would apply particularly to decision making on new proposals after the European Economic Space has been established and to institutional arrangements found necesssary to implement and enforce the agreement and its rules. It also meant that the existing rules could not be altered to cover
1178
the particular needs of any EFTA country. It is in these two areas that the negotiators found, and will find, the greatest difficulty.
The report has much to say both on the derogations which it is believed that EFTA is requesting to meet the special needs of some countries—we give the examples of Iceland and the Nordic countries on different points—and on the institutional and decision-making arrangements. We hope that our suggestions will be found to be not only sensible but useful. I shall mention some of them. On the derogations that are being put forward by EFTA—we guess that it is establishing a strong negotiating position and might be prepared to abandon some—we say in paragraph 76 that the derogations must not be too many; in paragraph 77 we say that the derogations must have a time limit; and in paragraph 78 we say that the Community can be more flexible over the requests for derogation on the movement of persons. Finally, in paragraph 80, we say that the balance-of-advantage principle must be kept in mind.
We went into the problem of decision making at some length in the paragraphs following paragraph 81. It seemed to us that EFTA must be enabled to influence the content of future decisions made about the space. We suggest that that influence should be by informal discussion and consultation at the earliest stage and again after publication of the legislation proposals by the Commission. We think that there needs to be general consultation between the EFTA countries and the Community and that general consultation should include a joint council of ministers of all member states which would meet at occasional but regular intervals.
We stress that the Community's normal legislative process which involves the European Parliament too, must not be interfered with. In paragraph 85 we point to the greatest of the difficulties that arises at the final stage when the two pillars as they are called in the proposed European Economic Space—the Community and EFTA—take a decision. An EFTA member state that objects strongly must be enabled to opt out in exceptional circumstances subject to very strong deterrents. The position of EFTA member states in this regard is different from that of member states in the Community which will or could have been involved throughout in the deliberations leading to the legislation. It is not recommended that that provision be given to EFTA members.
As regards the legal situation, we note that as yet EFTA has no supranational institutions for adjudication or enforcement. On adjudication we set out three options: (a) the extension of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, (b) what we call the Lugano Convention method, about which your Lordships can read in the report, and (c) a new court for the European Economic Space. There are difficulties about each. We recommend that the European Court of Justice should be fully consulted before a decision is reached. It is then for the Community and EFTA to make the choice.
In paragraph 92 we explain the problem of monitoring and inspection in certain fields where the Commission has its own role for the Community.

1179
We doubt whether EFTA will accept that, but point out the dangers of a separate body for the European Economic Space or for EFTA. In paragraph 95 we say that in our view the Community must insist on the EFTA countries giving direct effect to space law in the same way as members of the Community do for Community law.
Those are some of the detailed matters that are the subject of the negotiations. We raise some points in our general conclusions. As our inquiry proceeded we became more and more aware of the important wider questions raised by this dynamic proposal—for dynamic it is—for a European Economic Space. I am sure that some of your Lordships will be more concerned with them than with those points which I have outlined and which are most closely related to the actual negotiations that have now been formally started.
Events were moving fast during the course of our inquiry both inside and outside the Community, particularly in Eastern Europe. The Community is intent on becoming both deeper and wider. Those points which are outside the details of the negotiations to which I have referred are set out in paragraphs 94 to 98. I shall touch only on some of them before I sit down.
Would it be better to wait for EFTA members to apply and join as full members of the Community rather than set up this new idea, the economic space for Europe? We explain why in our opinion that is not a real option though we have heard some members of the European Parliament argue that it is. We know that Austria wants to join the Community as soon as possible, but nevertheless Austria is taking a full and sincere part in the negotiations for the space.
There is no certainty that any other EFTA country will wish to apply soon. There is evidence that some of its members will not apply for some years. The value of a stronger and wider Western European economic area is compelling in the face of world events and particularly in the face of the much-welcomed turn of Eastern European countries to democracy and market economies. The Community is right to attend to her relations with her closest European partners as soon as possible and not to wait until each feels able to apply to join.
We became convinced that there was nothing in the proposals for the space which would deter or delay applications for new membership of the Community. Indeed, we saw the completion of the new space as assisting EFTA countries to understand how the Community works, and so make joining easier for them. We also saw the possibility of associating individual Eastern European countries with the space when their economies have developed sufficiently.
Finally, we thought it right to emphasise the importance of the decisions that will have to be taken if the negotiations are to succeed, as we strongly hope that they will. We expressed the hope that, despite all the many important matters under discussion within the Community, adequate time and effort will be given to allowing the issues raised by the
1180
economic space discussions to be fully discussed and understood not only within governments but also among the peoples of each country. We hope that our report will help in that understanding.
Moved That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Relations between the Community and EFTA [14th Report, HL Paper 55].—(Lord Aldington.)
11.50 a.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as my noble friend said at the outset of his remarks, I shall be unable to stay to hear all of your Lordships as I shall be attending a lunch for His Royal Highness the Crown Prince of Morocco. I hope therefore that your Lordships will forgive me if I leave before the debate is over. My noble friend Lord Reay will respond for the Government towards the end. I promise all noble Lords that I shall study carefully what is said in due course.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Aldington and to his colleagues for the report we are debating today. It is a comprehensive and most valuable account of the opportunities and problems presented by the current negotiations between the European Community and EFTA. I am pleased to say that I can endorse virtually all the report's conclusions. Not only that, but the proposals made there are very largely reflected in the Community's negotiating position, agreed only this week.
Indeed, this debate is a miracle of timing. A week ago, the EFTA countries met in Gothenburg to celebrate EFTA's thirtieth birthday and to agree their own negotiating position. Then, on 18th June, the European Community Foreign Affairs Council agreed the mandate for the Commission in the forthcoming negotiations. I shall come to the details of that in a moment. On 20th June, the first formal negotiating discussion was held. Naturally, that was rather short. But the negotiations should now quickly begin in earnest. The Commission will speak for the Community but, of course, we will follow the negotiation extremely closely and will put in our own views and ideas whenever appropriate. In doing so, we shall certainly want to draw on the suggestions in the committee's report.
Before moving on to the detail, perhaps I may report one minor negotiating triumph which we have already secured. The Community has a horrible tendency to talk about "spaces"—a mistranslation, I fear, of the French word "Espace". Used in a term like the European Economic Space, it is quite inappropriate as it implies that there is nothing in the concept. I think that we have at last succeeded, though the efforts of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, in securing use of the term European Economic Area which gives a much better idea of what we are trying to do.
After all, the intention of the EEA is to bring together the EC and EFTA countries in a real single market—19 countries in all with a combined population of more than 350 million. This is a unique undertaking. Nothing similar has been attempted before. Creation of the EEA should be in the economic interest of all its participants. It

1181
remains a United Kingdom and European Community priority in our external relations. Of course, its very uniqueness means that both the content of the agreement and its institutional aspects will require careful consideration. There are some real difficulties ahead, but on both sides there is a real commitment to success.
I should perhaps underline that the EEA should be treated on its merits. It is not an alternative to full EC membership nor some sort of waiting room, though for some EFTA members it may turn out to be a stepping stone. Austria, for example, has participated fully in the EEA discussions, despite having already applied for full EC membership. One can speculate endlessly about whether and how the EEA negotiations might affect eventual enlargement of the Community. But I am not sure that that is very useful. For us, the key points are that the EEA must be worthwhile in itself and must not close the door to further EFTA applications.
I have mentioned the mandate agreed by the Foreign Affairs Council earlier this week. It may be helpful if I spell out the major principles lying behind it. First, the Community is aiming for an agreement—under Article 238 of the treaty—with the EFTA countries speaking with a single voice. I must underline that last point. Agreement will become very difficult indeed if the EFTA countries all start to seek special bilateral arrangements. This does require a change in the EFTA way of doing business, but so far the EFTA countries have succeeded admirably in staying together.
Secondly, the EEA is intended to cover all four freedoms—free movement of goods, services, capital and people. Exceptions can be possible only in so far as they are intended to safeguard fundamental interests, another vital point, as an agreement with numerous derogations would not represent much advance over the present situation.
Thirdly, agriculture will be excluded, although we will be seeking better access to EFTA markets. It is also not the intention to go as far as full Customs union. So there will be a continuing need for border controls and arrangements to deal with products from non-EEA countries.
Fourthly, the mandate sets out the EC's general ideas on the various institutional issues, a point to which I shall return.
The mandate is a fairly general one. It quite rightly does not attempt to spell out all the details of a final agreement. That is a matter for the negotiations. It is right that we should leave the Commission with some flexibility. However, member states will be closely involved with the negotiations and will be able to advise the Commission throughout.
It is all very well to describe the Community's position, but it is in the nature of a negotiation that the other side will have its own views too. I should like therefore to turn to what we see as the main problem areas in the negotiations.
The scale of possible EFTA derogations has been the subject of much speculation. EFTA Ministers restated their acceptance in principle of the relevant acquis at their meeting on 14th June while linking
1182
this to satisfactory arrangements for the joint management and development of EEA legislation. At the first meeting with the Commission on 20th June, the EFTA side said that it had identified about a dozen particularly sensitive issues. These included certain aspects of direct investment and acquisition of real estate, land transport, telecommunications, audiovisual services, insurance, company law and social policy. No further details are yet available. We will of course want to consider the EFTA case carefully on each issue. But I must repeat that too many derogations, particularly if they imply continuing barriers to trade and investment in goods and services, would undermine the new agreement in a serious way.
I take the central aim of the agreement to be the completion of the liberalisation process begun by the free trade agreements of 1972–73 and in this respect I share the committee's view that common competition rules will be essential for the proper functioning of the EEA. An institutional solution is necessary because the policing of the EC's competition regime is the responsibility of the Commission. No counterpart exists in EFTA. The mandate therefore stresses the need for EFTA to create a collective authority or mechanism to tackle abuses of competition. I regard this as a main priority for the negotiations. It is simply not feasible to leave the control of state aids, for example, to national authorities. EFTA must develop new structures to make the two-pillar approach to co-operation a practical reality. I believe that EFTA understands this, although there are real practical difficulties.
The committee has made some useful suggestions on reducing social and economic disparities within the EEA—the issue known as cohesion. The mandate has identified this as an important objective. I am convinced that the best course lies in improving access to EFTA markets for agricultural produce. A list of Mediterranean requests in this area was submitted to EFTA some time ago and I hope that the negotiations will allow a more vigorous approach to be taken towards these concerns.
In the end, I believe that the success of these negotiations will turn on satisfactory solutions being found to the institutional questions. The aims and principles have already been stated: the preservation of autonomies on each side; EFTA participation in the shaping of decisions affecting the EEA; effective surveillance and enforcement of obligations. But most of the detail remains to be filled in.
The committee is right to emphasise that arrangements on decision-shaping should be kept as simple as possible and should not risk delaying single market legislation—still the Community's top priority. The mechanism for information and consultation must allow a Community decision to take effect within the Community regardless of its acceptability to EFTA.
This raises the difficult issue of divergent legislation resulting from the exercise of autonomies. The mandate binds the Commission to include in the agreement appropriate procedures to be used where substantial differences arise between the two sides.

1183
As to enforcement of obligations, I part company slightly with the committee's report. I would not favour the extension of the Commission's powers over EFTA, nor do I believe that this is negotiable. The mandate sets out the aim of creating a judicial body based at the European Court of Justice to which EFTA judges would be attached. This would be responsible for interpreting the provisions of the agreement. An EC/EFTA joint committee will be charged with the management of the agreement, including the settlement of disputes between the parties. Where points of law were at issue the case could be referred to the judicial body. I have to say that these ideas have not yet been fully thought through on either side. I believe that the key to success will be a workable dispute settlement mechanism which, nevertheless, preserves the autonomy of both sides. Much hard thinking will be necessary to forge the new institutions demanded by the EEA..
Finally, I note the committee's views on the wider importance of this agreement. I have already said that the process should be treated on its merits. But it will be watched very carefully by the Community's neighbours in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean, some of whom have already stated their desire for membership of the EEA. I am sure that a successful conclusion to these negotiations will give a major impetus to the new liberal economies now being created on the Community's borders.
Perhaps I may conclude by again thanking my noble friend and his committee for all the work they have done on the report. This is a timely debate on a key area of the Community's external relations. We shall listen carefully to the contributions today so that they can inform our own position as the negotiations continue through the summer and the autumn.
12.2 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and also to the other noble Lords and my noble friend Lady Serota who sat with him on Sub-Committee A of the Select Committee for this most timely report on relations between the Community and EFTA. This debate could not have been held at a more appropriate time because EC Foreign Ministers and EFTA governments, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, have been discussing the implications of closer relations and possible amalgamation this very week.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, explained the Government's reaction to those meetings and to current negotiations. We are grateful to him for so doing. I noted that he is able to accept the conclusions of the report. I thought that his observations on the mandate were interesting. This is something that we shall need to study again.
When this issue is raised in conversation, everyone to whom I have spoken gives general support to the proposal that the six countries—seven, if Liechtenstein is included—should join up with the EC. They reflect the view expressed in paragraph 70 of the report, which says:
1184
"For political as well as economic reasons, the Community and the EFTA states make eminently suitable partners. They share the ideals and key characteristics of Western European democracies, and the historical evolution of relations points to a developing European Economic Space".
I agree with the noble Lord's comments as regards the word "space". I accept his suggestion that we should use the word "area".
Of course, Britain could provide a very suitable bridge in the developing negotiations for the reason that we were founder members of EFTA and should therefore have a sympathetic understanding of the problems of both sides; and problems there are, as the report makes abundantly clear, not least the possible strain on Community resources. The report refers to the cumbersome structure of the process set up at Luxembourg in 1984. Given our relations with the seven EFTA countries, it should be possible to set up a smooth negotiating procedure. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Reay, will comment on that aspect in his concluding speech.
Like other noble Lords, I read the evidence to the committee with interest and appreciation. I am grateful to the distinguished witnesses who took part. However, I am bound to say that reading it took a little of my time over the weekend. I was naturally interested to see what the ministerial witnesses had to say. For example, I noted that Mr. Francis Maude said that it seemed to him to be,
"very much in our interest and in the interests of all of us that we should take these steps to create this larger economic space".
He pointed out that EFTA is the largest trading partner of the Community.
Mr. Maude then answered questions put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, about the negotiations which he said would be conducted by the Commission. These negotiations were described by Mr. Jones-Parry of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as "normal Community practice", but which would be subject to the Council of Ministers. I understand that perfectly well. However, on a matter of such importance I should like to think that Parliament would also have an opportunity for a debate. I should make it clear that we on this side of the House would like to see EFTA apply for full EC membership. I believe that that view is shared by M. Delors; but I note, with respect, the committee's view on this, which was underlined by the noble Lord in his speech.
Mr. Jones-Parry, the FCO witness, also said that,
"any agreement must be finally subject to approval by the Council itself".
That of course means that the Government have approved it; but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Reay, will confirm that both Houses will also have an opportunity to debate the agreement. I mention this because we have talked a great deal about accountability in recent debates and we must ensure that that is not overlooked.
I am jumping the gun when I talk about the agreement because a number of prickly problems have to be resolved before we reach that stage, and the report makes that very clear. The agreement will rest on the Acquis Communautaire and this means the four freedoms of goods, services, capital and people as defined in the treaties and in EC legislation

1185
and case law. However, this does not include the CAP, the customs union or tax harmonisation, but I recognise that it means a substantial and, as the committee says, a mutually beneficial move for the EC and EFTA. I should like the negotiations to proceed to a discussion of full membership. But for the time being, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said in his speech, we must be content with the position as it is. The leaders of the EFTA countries have every reason to be pleased if they can go thus far without having to worry about the CAP.
Paragraphs 76 to 80, which deal with derogation, are also important and it is of interest to note that the committee supports a limited list of temporary derogations from the agreement. Again, these were dealt with by the noble Lord in his speech. That would be a very important concession and would make it very much easier for some countries to reach agreement. Different countries have different interests which they regard it as essential to protect. For example, Finland wants to keep foreigners out of its forests; Iceland is preoccupied with fish, as I know only too well from bitter experience; and Norway wants to limit the intake of labour.
As I understand it, the EC wishes to keep those exceptions to the bare minimum and cover vital national interests only. However, the committee suggests that the EFTA countries must make some sacrifices in return. That may create some difficulties although they should not be beyond resolution.
The evidence given to the committee by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was interesting. The noble Lord made the point—it is to be seen at page 14—that the negotiation with the EFTA members was not a device to get them into the Community by the back door or to get them into the waiting room for Community membership; it was to create a better and freer market for both sides. That was a colourful way of putting the point. I suppose that it might be right to call it a half-way house. The noble Lord has enlarged on the point in his speech today.
I also enjoyed reading the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. I should like to acknowledge the efforts he made as a Commissioner to bring the Community and EFTA closer together. The noble Lord made the point that the institutional problem is the most difficult of all to resolve. His analysis appears on page 116 at paragraph 610. That, again, is something upon which I should value the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Reay. I noted also that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, agreed that the institutional problem is the most difficult and most important. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, will agree that EFTA members must be ready to relinquish some national sovereignty.
There are of course other factors involved in a complex negotiation. These require further thought. A week ago Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia signed co-operation agreements with EFTA and joint committees are to be established whose objective will be to examine the possibility of setting up free trade areas with all three Eastern European countries. Again, does the Minister think that that can be reconciled with the move towards the Community or does it open another door between
1186
East and West? Those are all matters we must ponder carefully. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what role, if any, the Government envisage Eastern European countries having in the proposed European Economic Space.
What emerges clearly from the evidence, or so it seems to me, is that the witnesses, covering a wide range of interests, welcome the forging of closer links between the EC and EFTA. That is obviously something that the Government will take seriously. An example of the consensus may be seen in the conclusions of the CBI (page 124) and the European Trade Union Confederation (page 134). Of course there are some reservations, some different shades of opinion on certain issues. But the central theme is one of general support. I noted in particular the CBI's support for M. Delors's comments to the European Parliament on 17th January when he said that,
"the crux of the current debate is the decision making process. There will have to be some sort of osmosis between the Community and EFTA to ensure that EFTA's interests are taken into account in major Community decisions. But this process must stop short of joint decision making".
That is a point to be borne carefully in mind. The ETUC, as we would expect, stresses the need for a strong social dimension, and we support that. I wish that EFTA would accept the founding principles of the EC on the free movement of goods, services and capital, together with the relevant 1992 legislation in exchange for access to the single market. However, the majority of EFTA countries have balked at that. I hope that the negotiations will succeed, not least because failure would gravely, or could gravely, undermine EFTA itself.
Austria's application for membership, as we have been told, is already in; Norway's may follow. It is a complex process, but I am sure that the Government will wish to facilitate it.
In conclusion, perhaps I may once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and his noble colleagues on a first-class report and for enabling us to have this important debate.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I shall be brief. I hope that what I have to say is not inconsistent with the report. As a member of the committee that prepared it, I agree entirely with its findings. I do not believe that at any time in history have there been so many related international negotiations in progress and pending and so many governments seeking solutions to profound questions which will affect their futures in the next century. The EC/EFTA negotiation is not the most important; it is just one of several of those negotiations, and the report clearly illustrates the difficult problems involved. They have been repeated in the speeches today. I wish that I felt more confident about the successful outcome of the negotiation within the timetable which has been set.
I start from the point that full membership of the EC by the EFTA states is desirable. They are eminently fitted by history, politics and economics to play a significant part in the future organisation of Europe. The extent of their trade relationship

1187
with the Community is emphasised in the report. In the United Kingdom we feel a special kinship with several of the EFTA countries. Their membership of the Community would give great satisfaction in England and Scotland.
I am not convinced that all the members of the Community and its bureaucracy share that view. Among the present membership there is an element which would find it more comfortable to keep the present Community to 12 members or fewer. That is reflected not only nationally but within certain parts of the Commission and among some Members of the European Parliament. It has been confirmed in evidence received by another committee. Their preference is to see the Twelve continue to dominate European arrangements. I ask myself therefore whether the Commission's negotiators in the coming talks are genuinely seeking a compromise which would permit—I emphasise the point—the EFTA countries to proceed to full membership in a reasonable period of time. One of the Community Commissioners talked about 10 years at least in Scandinavia recently. That is not good enough. We have to wait to see, of course, how the negotiations proceed. I hope that I am mistaken about some members of the Commission wanting to drag their feet. But it is up to Her Majesty's Government to use their influence to try to ensure that the way is kept open for an enlarged Community which will include, as a matter of priority, our natural friends and allies.
In the coming negotiations the Commission has the stronger hand, but it should not abuse it for the sake of what appears to be a short-term gain. The EFTA countries cannot of course have their cake and eat it. They will have to face up to difficult choices which have already been mentioned in the debate. They may not hold together. There are problems of neutrality which must be overcome but which are manageable. I sincerely believe that if the Commission tries to drive too hard a bargain it will prove in the long run to be in no one's interest.
12.20 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, in certain important respects my views differ from those of your Lordships' Select Committee. I say that not in any criticism of the Select Committee's report which is an extremely valuable document bringing many issues into sharp focus. Nevertheless, there are certain matters on which my views are different from those of the Select Committee and think that I should explain them in some detail.
There are certain well known, tried and tested relationships in the field of international trade. One is the free trade area; another is the Customs union. The EFTA countries have an association with the European Community in a free trade area. The question before your Lordships' Select Committee was: is there any means of developing a closer relationship between a free trade area and full Community membership? The question that we now have to face is whether such a new relationship can be developed and what it would entail.
1188
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow. There is no substitute for Community membership. But membership is not for everybody. It requires a commitment to Community policies, both present and future, not just for today but for tomorrow as well.
Taken in this light, Community membership would not be everybody's goal. Equally, it is, I believe, complete nonsense to suppose that all the countries of the greater Europe could become members of the Community within any foreseeable period of time. It has always been accepted that countries applying for membership must have democratic institutions and a proper respect for human rights. In practice countries must also have market-based economies of the Western European kind.
The countries of the EFTA group are fully qualified for Community membership on all these grounds. But so far only Austria has actually applied for membership. Perhaps I may say in this connection—and the relevance of the remark will appear in a moment—that there is no justification whatever under the terms of the treaty for refusing to process Austria's application in time for membership by 1st January 1993. That date is critically important: it is the date set for completion of the internal market. By then the legislation on the internal market will be part of the Community acquis and will be binding therefore on any new member state.
However, to try to delay matters beyond that point is unwarranted. Claims have been made that there is a consensus not even to begin consideration of any applications for membership until after 1992. Frankly, that is not what the treaty provides. The obligation in the treaty is to consider applications on an individual basis. That is what ought to be done. Nor—with the withdrawal of Russia from the heartland of Europe, a withdrawal that will not be reversed—is neutrality any longer a problem.
The Commission has already produced its avis on the Turkish application which is the only other live application. There is no reason therefore why it should not now produce its avis on the Austrian application. That, in turn, would enable the European Parliament to proceed and the Council to come to a decision.
This point is relevant to the present negotiations on the European economic area. To the extent that EFTA countries join the Community, it takes much of the strain off the present negotiations. It is one thing trying to negotiate for six countries; it will be quite a different ball game if one is negotiating only for two or three.
At this point perhaps I may return to the general question of Community-EFTA relationships. We ourselves—that is the United Kingdom—were responsible for the creation of EFTA in 1960. We refused to join the European Community when it was launched, first, because we thought it would be a failure and, secondly, because we were convinced that what was needed was a simple free trade relationship and not a Community with wider economic, social and political objectives. When the

1189
Community was set up without us, we retaliated by creating the European Free Trade Association area. However, within a matter of a few years we came to the conclusion that we were wrong and applied for membership of the Community—an application that was promptly vetoed by General de Gaulle.
However, in 1973 we joined, in the company of Ireland and Denmark, and very nearly Norway. In 1986 we were followed by Portugal. Increasingly, the present members of EFTA have come to precisely the same conclusion we ourselves came to; namely, that a free trade area relationship was not itself sufficient. So far, as I have said, only Austria has actually bitten the bullet and applied for membership. In Norway, Sweden and Finland, the question has become a matter of lively national debate. However, it is for these countries themselves to decide whether to apply for membership, not for us to make pronouncements for them.
Short of Community membership, what can be done to develop the Community-EFTA relationship? It needs to be said right away—and this point was made strongly by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne—that the present free trade relationship has been greatly to the benefit of both parties. Its further development would undoubtedly add both to the prosperity and the political cohesion of Europe as a whole. The first step was taken, as your Lordships were reminded, in the Luxembourg declaration of June 1984 which launched the concept of the European Economic Space, as it was then called. A sense of urgency was injected by the publication of the programme for the completion of the internal market in June 1985.
In the event, there was more rhetoric than action. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for what he said about my participation. The only areas in which hard progress was made were those where I myself had direct portfolio responsibility. What we now have is a determined effort on both sides to turn the concept of the European Economic Space or economic area into reality.
The negotiations are based on the concept of extending the four freedoms established by the Treaty of Rome; that is, the freedom of movement of goods, persons, services and capital—incidentally, that is the order in which they appear in the treaty itself and in the Single European Act—to embrace the EFTA countries as well as the Community. I am sure that some improvements will be made and that they will be valuable. Nevertheless, I take the view that this approach will fail to achieve the real objective. The reason is perfectly simple.
The key to the whole internal market programme—this is essentially what we mean when we talk about the freedom of movement of goods, persons, services and capital—lies in the abolition of frontiers and frontier controls. It is the frontiers and the frontier controls which divide the Community into 12 domestic markets closed in upon themselves. The frontiers are not just physical barriers. They are psychological barriers as well. The abolition of the frontiers and the frontier controls not only allows unobstructed physical movement;
1190
it also allows the market forces and the forces of competition to operate across borders. It is this, in the end, which will create the single European market. The legislation is the key to the door, but it is the open door and the determination to go through it which will produce the benefits.
The truth is that one cannot get rid of the frontiers and the frontier controls unless one establishes a Customs union. Unless one has a Customs union with a common external tariff and a common external trade policy, one has to maintain frontiers and frontier controls in order to establish that goods being imported come from the countries they are alleged to come from. That this is so produces in turn the need for rules of origin, for certification of origin, for transit procedures and all the formalities of border controls. Of course one can simplify these procedures and during my term of office in the Commission we did much to simplify them. But one cannot get rid of them and once one maintains frontier controls, one maintains the frontiers as well. One ends up by obstructing not only goods but persons and de facto services as well.
The only answer lies in a Customs union. Once goods have lawfully entered the territory of the Customs union they are entitled to freedom of movement throughout the whole territory of the Customs union and this means one can get rid of the internal frontiers and the frontier controls. That this is so comes out very clearly in the structure of the Treaty of Rome itself. The very first words of the very first provision of the title of the treaty dealing with the freedom of movement of goods provides for the establishment of a Customs union.
A Customs union is a well established and well proven instrument of co-operation in international trade. Of course it raises problems but the problems are not as serious as is commonly supposed, nor are they more severe or different in kind from those associated with the approach being adopted in the present negotiations.
It may well be argued that a Customs union is so close to Community membership that the obvious course would be for countries to apply for Community membership. In many instances this would be so. Indeed, at the end of the day we might very well find that, in addition to Austria, Norway and Sweden might also opt for Community membership. But I doubt whether this would be universally true. A Customs union does not involve all features of Community membership. It does not automatically carry with it monetary union, or economic union, or political union. There will always be some countries that would in effect want to draw the line at 1992 and go no further. If we are to accommodate these countries in a stable and prosperous European framework, we need to create a structure which will meet their needs.
Moreover, if one takes the view as I do that Community membership is simply not an option in the foreseeable future for most of the countries of Eastern Europe and that the most we could hope for at present is a free trade area embracing them, it would be highly desirable to provide a stepping stone

1191
to enable them to progress in due time from a free trade relationship to membership of the Community itself.
There is some reason to suppose that the present "fast track" launch of the European Economic Space was designed to head off what were feared to be a large number of applications to join the Community by offering an easier and less onerous alternative. If this was so, I believe it to be a mistake. As regards the EFTA countries, it never has been realistic to suppose that more than two or three would actually apply for membership. Nor would their assimilation into the Community present any great problem. In contrast, the present negotiations to create the European Economic Space present serious problems. They were set out in some detail in the speech of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, said, the outcome of those negotiations is far from certain. Moreover, the present approach is at the same time both too ambitious and not ambitious enough. It is too ambitious in that it is trying to do everything and it is not ambitious enough because it is essentially a free trade area approach and thus likely to be less successful in achieving its objective than a Customs union.
Looking back over what has happened I think the wiser approach would have been to make it clear that any application from an EFTA country to join the Community would be processed in time to meet the date of 31st December 1992 set for the completion of the internal market. As regards any countries not wishing to join the Community, the offer should have been a Customs union reinforced by specific agreements on the financial services, and possibly other matters, on an ad hoc basis.
Nevertheless I accept that this is not the path which has been chosen. All I can do therefore is to wish the present negotiations success but say at the same time that in the interests of Europe's future they must not be used to obstruct the path of those countries fully qualified and wishing to join the Community. Let me conclude by saying that the report of your Lordships' committee has been of immense value in bringing these issues sharply into focus and enabling me, and I hope others too, greatly to clarify our views.
12.37 p.m.
Lord Benson: My Lords, one advantage of the Select Committee's inquiries is that a wide range of evidence is received and almost by a side wind so to speak, a number of matters of importance are brought to light. Apart from the clear recommendations of the Committee's report with which I of course agree, there seem to me four matters which are worthy of comment. First,—and in this respect I seem to be echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, has said—the impression left from the evidence tendered to us was that there is no consensus of opinion in the corridors of power nor yet in the marketplace of the Community as to whether and when other nations should be invited or should apply successfully to join the Twelve now present. I believe there is a risk
1192
in this situation and that in the meanwhile the Community will develop into such a tight, self-knit organisation that it will become increasingly difficult for other nations to join if they wish to do so. This indecisive attitude, if it exists as it appeared to do from the evidence, is damaging to the long-term interests of the Community.
Secondly, there is indecision and a lack of consensus of view among the EFTA states themselves. We know that Austria wants to join at once, but each of the other EFTA states is in a state of indecision as to its own position. There is one bond only that binds them wholly and fully together in one immutable stance and that is a desire to take part in the decision-making process of the Community.
My fear is that the EFTA nations my be able, by negotiation, to achieve a situation which is satisfactory for themselves without making any great sacrifices and which will leave them free not to join the straitjacket of the European Community. That would be most undesirable. There can be no possible object in sponsoring a European economic space or area, as it is now called, if there are to be permanent members of that area or space who will remain outside it in perpetuity. I do not believe that that is the intention of the Treaty of Rome.
The third point arises in connection with the European countries now released from the bondage of communism. In that area indecision is a virtue and not a drawback. Until we know what the political and economic policies of those countries will be it is impossible to know how and when it will be right for them to join. The impression left with me from the evidence given is that in the next 25 years, or longer, some of them will wish to join the Community, but in the meantime they will be put through a sifting and refining process such as the European economic area with which the EFTA states are now concerned.
The fourth point which seems to emerge more and more from the Select Committee's report is that it is time for the Community to streamline the top hamper of its administration and to overhaul the institutional framework. It is high time that the political machinery of the Community was put on to a more business-like basis and we were relieved of what is now called euphemistically the democratic deficit.
Changes in the Community's structure are necessary now but they will be necessary anyhow if the European economic area is to operate successfully in the future. Radical changes will be a necessity if the number of member states is to be increased above 12. It is high time that the Community gathered up enough political will to tackle those problems and to bring those changes into effect.
12.42 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I too should like to join in thanking my noble friend Lord Aldington and the members of his committee for producing an excellent and invaluable report. I should also like to join him in thanking the clerks who worked so hard and

1193
contributed to the success of the report. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Aldington will be extremely pleased and gratified by the very interesting and valuable speeches that we have already heard in this debate highlighting some of the evidence that came before the committee and commenting on the recommendations contained in the report.
Obviously, closer relations with EFTA countries and the EC are a crucial element for prosperity and peace within our region, sharing as we do a long history and common cultural heritage—there are many international and bilateral agreements with EFTA countries in the field of culture—and common membership of the Council of Europe. It is understandable, therefore, that EFTA countries seeing the prospective success of a single European market on their borders should want to share in it. Here I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Cockfield for his successful work as commissioner for the internal market. However, it should be pointed out that the GDP per capita for EFTA countries is approximately 15,000 dollars compared to 10,000 dollars in the EC. Therefore they are already ahead in the race if one measures prosperity by that means.
The difficulties evidenced in the report are a measure of the progress that has been made since 1957 when the European Economic Community was established. The difficulties evidenced in the report arise because of the progress made both in terms of economic integration—there are now 12 member states, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Cockfield—and in terms of the political development and work of the institutions within the Community. It is here that our problems lie.
I should like to refer to four points, some of which have already been raised by other noble Lords. EFTA apparently agrees to accept in principle the Acquis Communautaire, which has existed up to now but may not necessarily form part of future legislation, and the four freedoms. My noble friend Lord Cockfield very cogently pointed out that it seems to be almost impossible to have free movement of goods throughout the European Community and EFTA while 12 member states have a common external tariff barrier and the other seven have no such tariff barrier. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, who pointed out that border controls would have to remain if there is no such structure as a customs union. I strongly support the proposal of my noble friend that Ministers might look at that new approach to a satisfactory agreement.
I do not believe that anyone has yet mentioned that Denmark is a member of the Nordic union and would have problems if border controls are not removed at the end of 1992 with the free movement of persons. As part of the Nordic union Danes have a right of residence and free movement within the Nordic EFTA countries.
The Acquis Communautaire implies enforcement. Is it conceivable that separate courts—EFTA courts—could apply rules imposing the recognition and application of European Community rules? Is it conceivable that EFTA members should sit on the European Court of Justice to deal with EFTA
1194
problems? A proposal put to the European Parliament in a report by Mr. Rossetti was debated earlier this month in the European Parliament. He proposed that the European economic area should involve
"the application of a competition policy similar to that of the European Community".
It seems a good idea to have similar policies rather than the competition policy being applied, for instance, by the Commission. It is inconceivable that EFTA countries would allow the Commission to investigate breaches of competition policy as it does in the member states. Therefore the idea of having a parallel flanking policy in EFTA countries might be a way of getting over that particular problem.
Any intervention in the decision-making process would be strongly resisted by the European Parliament. The very idea that non-member states could be represented on the many committees set up by the Commission would cause considerable resentment and resistance in the Parliament. Already there is difficulty in trying to scrutinise the acts of the Commission, which after all is one of the European Parliament's functions and duties under the Treaty, in view of the committees which are set up and act in private. There is no record available to the public of any discussions and it is only when decisions come out of those committees that it is known what has been decided. Consequently I believe that such a proposal would be very strongly resisted by the Parliament.
Whatever the view of your Lordships may be of the European Parliament, under the Single European Act it has the task and responsibility of having to agree, by an absolute majority, any agreement concluded between the European Community and any third country or countries. Article 238 is the article proposed for the agreement between EFTA and the EC. Therefore, we should bear in mind that the European Parliament should and will play an important role in deciding whether the Council's proposals are acceptable, and I believe that in the area of decision making there will be problems.
We must realise that, even if those difficulties are overcome—and they may well be—we should not regard that as a blueprint for bringing other countries into the Community. As has already been mentioned, some of the EFTA countries may apply to become members of the European Community, as Austria has done. Working within the European Community mechanisms and with the political progress that we have seen over the past years will undoubtedly change the position of those countries. As has been said, probably Norway and Sweden and possibly Finland may in the end apply to join the European Community, but that will take time. It is not something that happens overnight. Any relationship that is established now between the EC and EFTA cannot be a blueprint for our relationship with Central and Eastern European countries whose economies and political situations are so different and fragile at the present time.
However, as we have looked towards Eastern Europe to join in a wider grouping of European nations, we should give every encouragement, strength and support to those countries, particularly

1195
Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, who wish to join the Council of Europe. It is the Council of Europe which acts as a gateway into the Community in encouraging and strengthening those newly found democracies to develop their multi-party systems and to observe the European Convention on Human Rights.
In conclusion, I wish the negotiations every success. I have grave doubts, but, whatever the outcome, it does not stop us from having to continue to search and to extend and support close co-operation with the EFTA countries.
12.51 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, this debate on the future relations between the EC and EFTA may sound to many people like another battle of acronyms or a fantasy struggle in the style of Jonathan Swift or a bowl of alphabet soup; but noble Lords know better than that and will recognise that such a matter is an important one, even on a Friday morning. I should like to invite the House to look at the larger horizon for a few moments.
In the coming years, the existing members of the European Community will, by their own actions, determine the future political geography of Europe. Those years will probably be the most significant period of political construction in our lifetimes. So far in this century, we have witnessed massive destruction and the disappearance of several empires. Some have passed to our regret; others we were pleased to see the end of. But now, to the general surprise, we have the opportunity of which statesmen dream: the chance to make good the too numerous tragedies of this unhappy century and to create something which could serve our successors as well as the 1815 Treaty of Vienna which functioned for virtually a century in keeping a peace which, notwithstanding a few notable shocks on the way, was a period unrivalled in more recent history. We shall do well if we can create something as useful and lasting.
I make no apology for seeing this apparently mundane matter over the relations between EFTA and the EC in this rather grandiose way. We need to understand the full dimensions of the work on which we are engaged if it is to play its proper part in the larger European edifice.
We can now see quite clearly the various parts of the structure that we have to build. First, the Twelve members of the EC are embarking on an ambitious programme of economic and political reform. We may presume, but we cannot be sure, that that enterprise will succeed. If it succeeds, it will certainly form the core of the new West European home.
Secondly, there is now the group of seven members of EFTA who have benefited from their existing association with the Community and now seek to deepen their ties with us, but without applying for full membership. Thirdly, there are the other existing associates of the Community in the Mediterranean. Some of those, notably Turkey, have applied for full membership and there are others which may aspire to that as well.
1196
Fourthly, we can see in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe a group of states which must be regarded as unquestionably European and some of which may also wish to consider membership in time. But their present pressing priorities are for economic reform, investment and access to our markets.
Fifthly, there is the security element. For us that is and should remain with NATO and the Western European Union. However, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the welcome decline in the threat that it has posed to us creates a wholly new situation. It would be wrong to attempt any certain prediction about the future arrangements for European security. For that very reason it would be wise to have in mind, as a reserve in case of need, the potential use of the European Community for activity in the field of political security.
What is important in the matter now before us is to ensure so far as we can that the different parts of the structure should be able to fit together to cohere as the building proceeds. As an example of my meaning, I cite the case of a state wishing to join the European Community which was constitutionally committed to political neutrality. That would not be compatible with my notion of the role that the Community may be called on to play in future. We are building a new system of political equilibrium, and if Europe is to be an effective member of the world balance of power in the next century it must not be constrained by having members who do not fully accept the rules or who may obstruct our future development of those rules.
I emphasise that concept of the balance of power because of a passage in the speech made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry delivered to the Bruges group on 5th June. Mr. Ridley referred in a tone of obvious regret to:
"The concept of the balance of power in Europe so sadly forgotten in present arguments over so-called political union".
The future balance of power which will matter is not within Europe; rather, it is the balance of power in a multi-polar world to which Europe makes its proper contribution.
It is with those broad considerations in mind that I suggest that we should study the admirable report before us. Negotiations rest on the idea of a European economic area. Readers of the report may find that a rather hazy notion and in some ways I agree with them. However, what President Delors sought to do in using that phrase was to satisfy the collective desire of the members of EFTA for a closer working relationship with the Twelve—not aiming, as in the words of the Treaty of Rome, at an ever closer union. The European economic area does not and should not mean that we should abandon the Community's effective control over its own policies and destiny. The suggestion is that that closer working relationship with the members of EFTA might be achieved by new forms of consultation, by derogations and by excluding some areas altogether.
Each of those ideas introduces difficulty. More consultation can hardly fail to cause greater delay in the Community's already lengthy decision-making procedure and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles,

1197
said, that is liable to create considerable problems for the European Parliament. Derogation is certainly possible, but some of the derogations sought are in areas of crucial importance to the Community; for example, fisheries, transit traffic over the Alps and the free movement of persons and capital. I also note that the EEA broadly speaking would exclude agriculture, which still accounts for over 50 per cent. of our Community budget. There must clearly be limits to such concessions, though I agree with the broad conclusions of the report. We must be careful not to offer too much or to seek agreement at too high a price.
Despite the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, when he introduced the report, I am uneasy about one suggestion that is contained in paragraph 85; namely, that we should offer the members of EFTA a kind of Luxembourg compromise of their own—the ability to opt out over the most difficult matters. The Luxembourg compromise, one may recall, is not itself recorded in the treaty. I doubt whether it would be wise for us to offer something in writing to EFTA which the existing members of the Community themselves do not enjoy.
While agreeing with this very clear and thoughtful report, I should like to add some words of caution. In essence, in attempting to create a European economic area we are perhaps trying to square a circle. The basic choice for EFTA remains between continuing the existing association and application for membership by individual members. I hope that it may be possible to find an intermediate point of agreement which is satisfactory to both parties. That is by no means impossible. Both the Twelve and the Seven would have much to gain from such an agreement. However, failure to find an accord, although a disappointment, would hardly be a catastrophe.
Most important, to my mind, is the need to keep firmly in view the broader structure that we shall build in the next few years. We do not want to misalign the EFTA part of the foundations. Correction later on might prove to be very difficult. It is the large ambitious structure which matters most to our future. We should not jeopardise that work by a less than satisfactory agreement with EFTA. But a good agreement with EFTA would support and strengthen our work and be welcomed in this country and throughout the Community. I hope that the Community's negotiators will achieve it.
1.2 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, as a member of the committee I should like to thank the chairman for his skilful guidance in the matters that we are now considering. I wish to make two main points. First, I am very much in favour of further agreement being achieved with the EFTA countries on the European economic area. But secondly, the agreements must be settled in such a way that they do not become damaging precedents and obstacles which might make it difficult for the Community to create new kinds of relationships with other countries at a later date.
1198
It has already been said this morning that full membership may be appropriate for some countries. I share the view which asks: Why must Austria wait? Austria has a strong claim for consideration as a new member and ought not to have to wait until 1993. The other applicant at this time is Turkey. Turkey has been our ally in NATO for many years and nearly 50 per cent. of its entire foreign trade is with the Community. Moreover, by an agreement of association signed with the Community in 1963, Turkey has enjoyed a continuous relationship with the Community and by that agreement has been encouraged to look forward to full membership at some date in the future.
For other countries full membership may not be immediately appropriate, especially for those in Eastern Europe and the Baltic, as the structure of the Community and the European economic area has been designed with comparatively wealthy countries in mind. It may be that a whole range of co-operative arrangements are needed to accommodate the wider Europe which is now rapidly emerging. However, none of those considerations detracts from our wish to advance our relationship with the EFTA countries. As has been mentioned, not only do we have a common heritage of political and social values but their presence does much to redress the balance between southern and northern Europe.
The report stresses the strength of the EFTA countries. Although they contain only 32 million people, which represents one-tenth of the Community's population, as my noble friend Lady Elles pointed out, their GDP is some 50 per cent. higher than that of the Community. EFTA and the Community constitute an extremely strong group of trading partners. If the 19 nations of the Community and EFTA were put together, 70 per cent. of all their exports and 65 per cent. of all their imports would take place between those 19 countries. Moreover, the EFTA countries have social machinery and social policies—for the sick, the old and the disadvantaged—which are far more generous than those of the Community. Finally, unemployment is far higher in the Community than it is in EFTA.
However, I have some anxieties. For instance, will it be possible in the event to arrange one agreement with EFTA or will there need to be separate arrangements with each country? There must be some doubt as to whether the two-pillar theory as proposed by M. Delors, can be sustained: that EFTA should no longer negotiate as separate states but reach a common purpose. Can the elementary EFTA organization, even increased from 80 to 120, permanently sustain an organisation for six separate states?
But not only is there doubt about the organisational cohesiveness of EFTA. The long list of derogations which we understand that EFTA countries are likely to claim suggests that there is little collective spirit and little sense of a common direction in practice among the six nations. The derogations are very different and reflect different objectives. Austria, Finland, Switzerland and Sweden want limits on the ownership of land. Finland wants special protection for its forests.

1199
Iceland is determined to close its fishing grounds to all while claiming accesss to Community markets for its fish. Again, Iceland wishes to prohibit any foreign ownership of Icelandic ships. Austria and Switzerland want transit traffic to be controlled until a permanent or long-term solution can be found. Norway, Sweden and Switzerland enjoy standards of health, safety and environmental protection that are higher than those applying in the Community. Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland do not find it acceptable that workers from the Community should enjoy unlimited access.
Some of those derogations may be entirely reasonable but as my noble friend Lord Cockfield pointed out to the committee, derogations are temporary measures. Many of those derogations are likely to be requested for unlimited periods. That collectivity of derogations, which EFTA countries are requesting, may make it doubtful whether in the long term EFTA can sustain the unity which its organisation is presumably intended to reflect. One recalls, quoted in the report, the remark of President Mitterrand. He said:
"There will be no agreement without exceptions being made, but again there can be no agreement based only on exceptions".
The differences between the EFTA countries are great. The countries stretch from Austria, which has applied for full membership, and Norway, which appears to be nearer to re-applying, to those countries whose neutrality would appear to be a bar to any closer association at present. Austria does not find its neutrality incompatible with full membership. However, Sweden appears to be inhibited by its neutrality. In that respect Switzerland is an extremely interesting case. While its neutrality as such does not appear to be a bar, the institutional and constitutional arrangements in the country, based upon its system of direct democracy, reflect a situation in which the nearer Switzerland approaches the Community the greater the danger that its three constituent elements may be attracted to their racial origins. Therefore, the very idea of joining the Community may itself operate as a centrifugal force.
Finally, the decision of the EFTA countries to support each other's derogations, irrespective of the merit or demerit of each proposal, while understandable in practice, might be taken to suggest that the EFTA countries are more interested in what they can secure from the Community rather than in what they can contribute to it.
Perhaps I may return to my original point: should there be agreements with EFTA countries? Yes, certainly, but they should be concluded in a way which would not foreclose any arrangements which might be needed in the future to enable the Community to create appropriate associations with other countries. Relations with EFTA cannot be divorced from the rest of Europe. Novel structures may well be needed to deal with the problems of the wider Europe which is now rapidly emerging.
1.13 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, it was a great privilege to serve on the committee under the enlightened
1200
chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Aldington. I thank him sincerely for his stewardship. I join other noble Lords in thanking our clerk, Mr. William Sleath, for his excellent services.
The report has raised many complex issues of European policy but they have been so competently and well discussed in your Lordships' House today that I wish to limit my contribution to concentrating as briefly as possible on just one matter; namely, the question of the potential future of the European Free Trade Association, the European economic area, as we now call it, and the emerging countries of Eastern Europe.
I believe that, unless great care is taken, there is a real danger that the current proposals for the development of the EEA could amount to the creation of a kind of secondary, mini-EC. As the report concludes in paragraph 96:
"the obstacles on the path to agreement are considerable".
While the logistical problems are not, I hope, insuperable, they are enormous and will inevitably place considerable strain on Community resources. It appears to have been accepted by several witnesses that the EEA will create a kind of halfway house to membership of the EC. But it is essential—to endorse remarks made by other noble Lords and as the report states at paragraph 101—that,
"EFTA states cannot be seen to gain advantages from the European Economic Space without making some sacrifices in return".
However, these disadvantages are outweighed by what I see, perhaps optimistically, as the golden opportunity of the future. The great hope must be that the right machinery and organisation will be in place so that in due course it can be extended to include the countries of Eastern Europe. In evidence the honourable Francis Maude MP said that he believed that to be a real possibility. While I accept that it is a vision of the far distant future, it must be the ultimate aim if all the considerable work and efforts now required to develop the EEA are to be worthwhile.
I support Sir Leslie Fielding in his analysis of the more immediate future given in answer to Question No. 195. He said:
"what is likely to emerge … is a new kind of Europe in which there will be a wider association of all European countries marked by degrees of shading in the intensity of their mutual relationships—first, the Community of the Twelve … then the EFTA countries … and thirdly, the Eastern European countries, each individually associated to a degree according with their level of economic and political development".
I hope that the transition to the idea of my noble friend Lord Cockfield—which he gave in evidence in answer to Question No. 630—of a free trade area covering the whole of Europe would follow relatively quickly. His concept of a stable and flexible structure covering Europe—where, for example, an Eastern European country could move into the EEA or an EFTA country could apply to join the EC—is the logical objective.
It is vital that the EC remains at the forefront in developing relations with Eastern Europe. Let us get the EEA in place as quickly as possible so that maximum attention and resources can be devoted to developing trade and economic relations with

1201
Eastern Europe. I hope that Mr. James Moorhouse MEP was right when he gave the following reply to the question of how big he thought the Community would be in 20 or 30 years' time. In answer to Question No. 519 he stated:
"I think it is more likely to embrace the whole of Western and Central Europe, that is to say, certainly the EFTA countries, certainly Poland, and Hungary and Czechoslovakia and quite probably Bulgaria and, if things settle down in Rumania, that too … Turkey has made an application. If the Lithuanians were free I dare say they would like to join too".
I do not wholeheartedly support the creation of the EEA as an end in itself; rather I urge its development in so far as it provides the machinery and a stepping stone to a future united Europe. Paragraph 97 of the report states:
"There is no doubt that European Economic Space members should be welcomed into the Community in the future and involvement in the European Economic Space should not reduce the attraction of Community membership for EFTA states. The Committee assume that the Community will keep to its undertaking to consider further applications for membership once the Internal Market is in place. As for the European Economic Space, the Committee assume that its membership will also be open to enlargement; the agreement should include a provision making this clear".
The report's penultimate paragraph, No. 105, concludes:
"A European Economic Space should be a dynamic step forward for Europe".
I hope and believe that that is true.
1.20 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I must apologise for having taken my name off the list last night and for having put it on again this morning. However, I feared that I would be unable to attend this morning. I hope that noble Lords will accept that as sufficient excuse. I shall not detain your Lordships long but I should like to join with noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and his committee for this admirable and extremely important and timely report.
I shall not repeat what many noble Lords have already said; namely, that the EFTA negotiations are important for reasons that have been given both in the report and in a number of speeches. However, I agree profoundly with the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, that they are also important as a first effort at developing new forms of association between the EC and other countries. As several noble Lords have said, there are a number of countries which might join or which have said that they wish to join. Austria has applied; Norway and Sweden may apply. As your Lordships have already noted, those countries present no problem through the development of their democratic institutions or in their defence of human rights, or in their economic performance. I would add a fourth element which seems to me important: there is no great cultural gap between us and them.
However, there are others which for a variety of reasons may not wish to join, or which might be in some sense or other unsuitable as members. I have always felt severe reservations about the prospect of Turkey becoming a member of the European Community. I must confess that if other people
1202
share those reservations, it is rather cynical of the Community to allow its participation to remain on the table. My reasons for taking that view are simply that what I call the cultural gap between us and Turkey is very wide and very difficult to bridge; Turkey's record on human rights is far from satisfactory; nor can it be said to have what we would describe as democratic institutions. Because of their size, countries such as Cyprus and Malta clearly wish an association of a rather different nature from other members.
We then have that group of countries which a number of your Lordships have mentioned: Central and Eastern Europe. Clearly new forms of association are required to meet the needs of those differing groups of countries. Those forms of association may be stepping stones in some cases and in other cases of a more permanent nature.
The report has already indicated, and the debate has illustrated, the very real difficulties in developing such forms of association. It was put forward very powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, in his description of the Swiss position. If we are to accommodate countries in Central and Eastern Europe within some relationship to the European Community, the arrangement will have to be rather different from anything that I suspect we have envisaged in the past. The transitional period will have to be of a different order. That was the first point that I wished to make.
The second is very important. In developing those forms of association they must not be used as an excuse for not (what is known as) deepening the institutions of the Community. That I fear was the message of Mr. Ridley's speech to the Bruges group to which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred. That seemed to me to be the motive for his opposition to a single currency and monetary union. If that opposition were successful, if this country found itself left out of the full monetary union, we would then have three intersecting circles: an inner group within Europe; an outer group within the Community; and some form of relationship with EFTA and those other countries. It seems to me that that would be a very dangerous situation for this country. While I hope that the EFTA negotiations succeed and give us experience in developing new relationships between the European Community and other countries, we must not let them prevent us from rightly developing institutions in the Community.
1.25 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, it has been a highly stimulating debate and I should like to thank noble Lords both for their contributions today and for the report of the Select Committee presented so admirably and helpfully by my noble friend Lord Aldington. It is a most valuable body of work on an extraordinarily important and indeed fascinating subject. I have no doubt that it will be of great value to many people concerned in the negotiations in the months ahead.
The creation of the European economic area shows that the Community means what it says about maintaining an open, outward-looking trading

1203
position as the single market is completed. The proposed agreement with EFTA will break down the same barriers that we are successfully tackling in the 1992 single market programme.
The benefits to the United Kingdom are, as always, difficult to be precise about in terms of GDP but there will undoubtedly be improved opportunities resulting from market-opening measures particularly in services. The European economic area is not therefore a vague concept. It is essentially the extension of the new single market to embrace the whole of Western Europe.
The mandate for the Commission has left much detail to be clarified during the negotiations but the United Kingdom's concerns on substance, principally the need to ensure equal conditions of competition throughout the European Community/EFTA area, have been fully met. It is a basic requirement for the success of the agreement that there should be adequate policing of competition within the EEA and for this EFTA will have to develop some form of collective authority to complement the Commission's role within the Community.
The report rightly underlines the need to weigh up economic benefits against the costs of creating new EC/EFTA structures in the form of a decision-shaping process, surveillance and enforcement procedures, and a joint judicial body. The manadate for the Commission is very clear on the preservation of the EC's autonomy but we should be mindful of another guiding principle put forward by the committee: that whatever institutional arrangements are devised they must be kept as simple as possible and not be burdensome on the Community's already stretched resources.
I have been asked a number of questions to which I shall do my best to respond. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition expressed hope for a smooth negotiating process. The negotiations will inevitably be complex. It is likely that there will be a number of working groups at all of which member states will be present. The Commission is confident that it has the resources to cope with the negotiations. I hope that that will indeed be the outcome.
The noble Lord expressed a wish that there should be a debate in Parliament on the agreement. The final agreement will be subject to the scrutiny procedures of both Houses. There should therefore be an opportunity for debate.
The noble Lord favoured full membership of EFTA within the European Community. I refer him to the words of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne when he pointed out that it was difficult to foresee what the effect of the European economic area will be on enlargement. However, I agree with him that the area must not prevent further applications for European Community membership from EFTA countries. Nor do I see it in that way. I do not see the European economic area as an obstacle in the way of enlargement.
The noble Lord put his finger on the major point regarding institutional issues. They will of course be difficult and will have to be worked out during the
1204
negotiations. Provided that the autonomy of the European Community decision making is not undermined, we shall wish to be flexible about how EFTA is involved in influencing decisions.
The noble Lord asked what role there would be for Eastern Europe. There is a growing co-operation between EFTA and the East European countries and we welcome that. It parallels the steps which the European Community is taking, particularly in the negotiation of association agreements which was first put forward by the United Kingdom. We see no conflict between those developments; rather complementarity.
Finally, the noble Lord asked if I would agree that EFTA countries must be ready to relinquish some national sovereignty. It is inevitable that the European economic area will mean some loss of sovereignty for EFTA countries, but they are already so integrated into the European Community economy that they have to adopt much Community legislation without any say in the matter at all. In that sense membership of the European economic area would be an improvement, even if it fell short of full joint decision-making, because they would be playing a part in the forming of decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, wondered whether the Commission was committed regarding applications to the Community. He wondered if it wished to prevent EFTA membership of the Community. The Commission is fully committed to negotiations on enlargement. Like the council, it agrees that we should not contemplate enlargement before 1992. At present it is examining the Austrian application. We have no reason to believe that the Commission is seeking to put off further applications or to block the Austrian application. Like us, it believes that the European economic area negotiation is a matter which should be treated on its merits.
My noble friend Lord Cockfield, in his interesting observations, raised the question of the Austrian application. The Commission is working on the Austrian application and the only agreement that there has been is that there should be no new members before 1993. Meanwhile the processing of that application will take place.
My noble friend Lord Cockfield was sceptical of the impact of the European economic area. He was quite right to point out that without a Customs union frontier controls would continue. We have not ruled out a Customs union in the longer term, nor has the Community. However, I suggest we should not try to run before we can walk.
The noble Lord, Lord Benson, expressed the fear that the EFTA countries may be divided among themselves. The EFTA countries have had difficulties but what is more remarkable is the extent to which they have stayed together. I agree that decision making will be the key issue for them. Wider issues were raised regarding the procedures of the European Commission. That is an issue which was very much in the forefront of the second intergovernmental conference on institutional issues which is likely to be agreed at the Dublin summit next week.

1205
My noble friend Baroness Elles expressed support for the Customs union. The Customs union is not essential to achieve the European economic area. We should remember that there are difficulties on both sides. For example, EFTA has so far declined to embrace the common commercial policy without which a Customs union would not work. Nevertheless, as I have said, the possibility for future discussions is open.
With regard to my noble friend's other point, that it would be better to have similar competition policies than enforcement by the Commission, the danger is that similar but not equal competition policies would lead to distortions of trade within the European economic area. EFTA must develop a collective structure to enforce the competition regime. However, I agree that that should not be done t y the extension of Commission powers.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said that there would be a danger if EFTA could opt out of its obligations. I agree that divergence between the European Community and the European economic area legislation should be justified only by fundamental interests. Negotiations will address the need for appropriate measures in the agreement to take effect if major problems occur because of such differences.
My noble friend Lord Butterworth also referred to the Austrian application. He said that it should not have to wait until 1993 for its application to be handled. As I said, the application is being considered by the Commission in line with the normal European Community procedure. The Commission will produce an avis on the application for discussion by the council.
My noble friend also expressed scepticism as to whether it would be possible to reach agreement with EFTA collectively and suggested that we may find ourselves reaching agreement on a country by country basis. EFTA has so far spoken successfully with one voice. The Community view is that a series of agreements with EFTA countries would not achieve the goal of the European economic area. The recent EFTA ministerial meeting in Gothenburg underlined their commitment to strengthening EFTA structures.
My noble friend Lord Geddes mentioned the countries of Eastern Europe and hoped that they could be included within the European economic area. The European economic area is not conceived of as an exclusive club, but for the time being the EC and EFTA countries must press ahead with the programme of work that they have under way. It will be some time before Eastern European countries may be ready to join the European economic area, but I agree that membership could be appropriate as their economies develop. With that in view it becomes even more important that we get the structural arrangements of the European economic area right.
I am sure that other points were raised by noble Lords. I shall consider them and if I discover any that I omitted perhaps I may write to noble Lords. The need to keep in view the wider Europe has been brought out very clearly by the report and the debate
1206
we have had today. As my noble friend Lord Trefgarne said, our neighbours are watching us, and getting the arrangements right for the European economic area will make an important contribution to the architecture of the new Europe. We do not underestimate the difficulties ahead, and on both sides we are committed to resolving them.
The report of the committee covers all issues in depth and raises many interesting questions, not all of which we have had time to explore. I thank noble Lords again for providing so much food for thought and useful guidance for Government policy during the course of the negotiations ahead.
1.38 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House would like to thank my noble friend for his very competent and comprehensive reply, and for the terms in which he and my noble friend Lord Trefgarne addressed the subject. We are most grateful.
I should like to say how grateful I am—as is the committee—for the reception given by your Lordships in a number of highly stimulating and carefully thought out speeches, to the work we did in producing the report. I sense one or two noble Lords attempting to find a difference between the report and what they thought was right. My noble friend Lord Cockfield mentioned the Customs union. In Paragraph 75 we showed that we agreed with him, so there is no difference there.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne made a point on the option that we set out in relation to the extension of jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. We did not recommend that. We said that it was one of the options. I think the Minister liked our third option, and, frankly, so do I.
The point about opt-out was raised. If my noble friend Lord Bridges looks very carefully at paragraph 85, in which we deal with that, he will find that we were as nervous about that as he is. We explained why we did not think it prejudiced the position inside the Community.
I end the debate with a feeling—I hope that my noble friends who were members of the committee feel the same—that the whole House is in support of not only the work that we have done but of our suggestions and conclusions. I thank the House for that and I ask for agreement to the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Access to Health Records Bill
1.40 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Before anything else perhaps I may say how happy I am that this debate has attracted two maiden speakers from whom I expect a great and important contribution to this debate. I know how much we all look forward to what they have to say.
The Bill before us is the result of a Private Member's Bill introduced in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Douglas Henderson. Its

1207
purpose, subject to certain exemptions, is to allow people to see their own medical and other health records. Personally, I am happy to be in a position to present this Bill. Over the years I have shown a certain doggedness about promoting the cause of accessibility to information. In November 1986 I initiated a debate in this House about general accessibility to information and I was delighted to be able to support the Bill, which later became the Access to Personal Files Act, when it was introduced in May 1987 by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who will be taking part in this debate.
However, at that time we very much regretted the fact that medical records which initially were included had to be dropped from its scope. I remember ending my speech on that occasion by saying that we were happy to have the Bill accepted but that we regarded it as a Mini and that we hoped the Mini would grow and grow and finally become a Rolls-Royce of a Bill about access to information. I am happy to be able to say that the Bill now before us has grown very much and is coming along nicely towards developing into the Rolls-Royce that we who are interested in freedom of information would like to see.
The Bill addresses an odd inconsistency under the Data Protection Act. We now have a right of access to computerised medical and other records on ourselves but we have no right to see manually held medical records, though other forms of manual records in the areas of housing, social work and education have been, or are about to be, opened up. The Bill establishes a right of access to non-computerised health records subject, more or less, to the same safeguards that apply to health records under the Data Protection Act. The Bill has been the subject of detailed discussions with health Ministers and I am very happy to be able to say that it enjoys the support of the Government.
Before describing the Bill I should like to explain why I believe it is so necessary and how it provides an important new freedom for people. After all, we are encouraged to take more responsibility for our own health. We increasingly want to know what to do to keep ourselves healthy and to aid and assist our recovery when we are ill. We want to be able to discuss our treatment with the doctor, to understand what we are being asked to consent to, to know the risks, alternatives and chances of success. This Bill will help us to do that.
Of course, access to the written record is not an alternative to discussion with the doctor but I believe it may help to make that discussion more informed and more equal and therefore become a much more natural process between doctor and patient. The Bill will allow access for those who ask for it but it will not force the record on anyone who does not want it. Therefore, it will not affect people who prefer to leave the doctor to decide what to tell them or who even want to be shielded from the truth.
The Bill will help if the doctor is not fully responsive to the patient's needs or is overprotective. A survey published this April in New Woman magazine found that 44 per cent. of people said that their doctor did not always fully explain their
1208
condition and treatment and 15 per cent. said they never received the necessary information. The survey also found that 94 per cent. of people would rather be told the truth about a serious illness but that four out of five doctors said that they would lie if the illness was terminal or if they thought that the person could not cope. Both statistics seem to be in conflict, one with the other.
A survey last year by the Campaign for Freedom of Information found that a growing number of doctors already allow access to records if the patient asks, and many of them support this legislation. One general practitioner said:
"I am very keen that the patient has access to the same information as I do because that way we both deal with the same problem".
Another doctor said:
"Patients are far less demanding and welcome being treated as adults".
He also said that it helps to overcome patient paranoia if they know exactly what is going on and know that they have the whole truth. Many doctors said that access would help clear up misunderstandings and misconceptions. Therefore, a great benefit of openness is that it will help improve the accuracy of records. Again, that is another important reason for having this Bill.
One general practitioner who monitored records forwarded to him on his new patients found that one in four of the records omitted the information which the doctor regarded as valuable or essential to patient care. Records had failed to include the existence of conditions such as open heart surgery, rheumatic fever, kidney failure and hysterectomy. One woman who was allowed to see her records found that they only covered the last nine years. She discovered that the bulk of her records had been retained by her former GP. It was only as a result of her efforts that the lost records were found. They had been kept by the former GP. The woman suffers from a serious neurological condition but her current doctor was totally unaware of the investigations that had been carried out. It was only because the patient was allowed to see the records that it was discovered.
There is little doubt that access would help the patient to detect such mistakes and that is something one would expect the doctor to appreciate as much as the patient. Finally, openness will act as a safeguard against possible casual, ill-considered personal comments that are sometimes found on medical records. Such comments may remain on a patient's record for life and may unfavourably affect the way in which subsequent health staff think and regard the patient. The right of access may make those who keep records think rather more carefully about what they write.
Some doctors may be concerned that openness will inhibit them in recording opinions on matters which the patient may find unpalatable. It has been suggested that doctors may be reluctant to record suspicions that a patient has, say, an alcohol problem. If the patient has the right to see his notes the doctor may prefer not to include that in his notes. However, I wonder how helpful to the patient it is to record such suspicions but conceal them from the patient. Surely the doctor would raise his concern

1209
in a tactful way; otherwise, how else could the doctor offer help? The notes would then reflect that it had been done and perhaps also record the patient's response. That would then come as no surprise to the person if he asked to see his records.
I now briefly outline the Bill's main provisions. It applies, as I said, only to manually held records on the health of an individual which had been made by, or on behalf of, a health professional in connection with the care given to that individual. "Health professional" is defined in Clause 2(1). The term embraces not just doctors but dentists, opticians, pharmacists, nurses, midwives, health visitors and a variety of others. Both National Health Service records and those kept in private practice are covered. This Bill does not apply to information recorded before its commencement apart from a minor provision in Clause 5(2) which operates only at the record holder's discretion.
Clause 3(1) specifies who may apply for access. That would be the patient—him or herself—or the patient's authorised representative. Subject to certain safeguards the parent of a child under the age of 16 or, in Scotland, the parents of a pupil, can apply. The child itself may also apply provided he or she is capable of understanding the nature of the application. That is the position under the Data Protection Act.
The Bill also provides for applications to be made on behalf of persons incapable of managing their own affairs. After the death of the patient the records relevant to a claim for negligence can be applied for by a person entitled to bring such a claim. That is usually a dependant. Applications will be made in writing to the holder of the record, who must reply within 40 days. However, where the request is limited to information recorded in the past 40 days, Clause 3(5) requires that the response must be made within 21 days. That provides quicker access for the patient seeking information about his or her current treatment.
The applicant will be able to inspect the record and obtain a photocopy on payment of copying costs. The applicant is entitled to an explanation of any unintelligible terms. If the applicant asks only for information recorded in the past 40 days, no fee can be charged for access. If a patient wants information about current treatment he will not be charged. However, in other cases a fee at the same level as that under the Data Protection Act can be charged. That is currently £10.
Clauses 4 and 5 deal with exemptions. Information can be withheld where, in the record holder's opinion, access would cause serious harm to the patient or to someone else. The serious harm test also appears under the Data Protection Act and in the legislation covering access to social work and housing records. Information about or provided by some other identifiable individuals other than a health professional, is also exempt. The information will be made available if that person consents.
One of the changes resulting from the Government's amendments in another place has been to remove the original requirement that a
1210
patient should be told when exempt information is withheld. The patient is no longer entitled to know. I personally regret that. However, that reflects the position under the Data Protection Act. A parent may have access to a child's records with the child's consent. If the child is incapable of giving consent the parent can have access provided that access is in the child's best interests. That recognises that sometimes the interests of parent and child may differ.
For example, the parent may want the information to strengthen his or her case in a divorce dispute. Even where access is granted that information which the child gave in the expectation that it would remain confidential from the parent—for example, in discussing problems at home or possible child abuse—would not be disclosed. The Bill gives the Secretary of State power to make further exemptions by regulation should these be found necessary later.
Clause 6 allows the applicant to seek the correction of inaccurate information. If the record holder accepts that the information is inaccurate he must make the necessary correction. If he does not, he must note on the record that the applicant disputes the information. The patient cannot compel the doctor to alter the record against the doctor's better judgment unless the patient successfully appeals through the Bill's appeals' procedure.
Clause 7 requires health authorities and other NHS bodies to take advice from the appropriate health professional before making any decision which requires him to form an opinion; for example, whether access would cause serious harm to someone. Normally, the advice from the doctor responsible for the patient's care would be sought. Where the patient is not under a doctor's care the clause lays down alternative arrangements based on those found under the Data Protection Act. Anyone who believes that an exemption has been abused or that the record holder has failed to comply with a requirement of the Act, would have a two-fold right of appeal under Clause 8. In the first instance the appeal would be through an internal procedure to be laid down in regulations. Presumably, they would be operated by health authorities, family practitioner committees and other NHS bodies. If having gone through this procedure the applicant remains dissatisfied he or she would ultimately be able to appeal to the court.
Clause 9 attempts to prevent a third party, such as an employer, compelling someone to obtain his or her medical records and to hand them over to that third party. Any term of contract which attempts to require that would be unenforceable. That does not interfere with the present ability of an employer or insurer to keep a medical reference from the patient's general practitioner provided they have the patient's consent.
Finally, the Bill will come into force in November 1991. It does not apply to Northern Ireland. Can the Minister say whether it will be implemented in the Province by an Order in Council? I hope that the Minister is listening to my only question. I cannot see why the people of Northern Ireland should be denied this particular right.

1211
I end by saying that this measure strengthens the rights of the individual. It will help people to become more self-reliant. It is a valuable measure which has very wide public support. I fear that it comes to this House rather late in the parliamentary timetable. It has already been the subject of very detailed discussion with Government and the professions. I believe that the Bill contains the necessary safeguards. I hope that it will be acceptable to your Lordships and that noble Lords will wish to see it on the statute book with the minimum of delay.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Ewart-Biggs.)
1.56 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I rise to speak in this debate in the knowledge that your Lordships are always generous, gentle and kind to new Members of your Lordships' House and that in particular maidens are to be cherished. I say maidens because I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is also addressing your Lordships for the first time this afternoon. Perhaps I may say how much I am looking forward to her contribution on this and on future occasions since I know her to be an eloquent speaker. She has experience in many fields which I feel sure will be of great value to your Lordships' House, as it has been in another debating chamber in the city of Norwich.
I have grown up in the National Health Service. I have chaired a district health authority and now I chair a regional health authority. I am very much aware that the spirit of glasnost has not been as fervently embraced in medical circles as it has been elsewhere. Perhaps it is a little strange that the records of part replacements, breakdown and repairs and servicing for the only thing that we can truly call our own should not be open for our own personal inspection and indeed not yet for our own safe keeping.
We choose our doctors but they fill in our records. I suggest that there is merit in knowing what is written and whether it is accurate; a point very ably made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, in introducing the Bill. An example was brought home to me very clearly the other day. An acquaintance of mine who is expecting a baby for the first time had her age noted as 35 when in fact she is 25. This clerical error triggered off a whole range of interventionist and inappropriate medical care which she did not want. It was only when she was able to persuade her doctor to show her the notes that the error was discovered and she was able to have the kind of care that she wanted and which was more appropriate to a person of her age.
I believe that many doctors feel that medical records actually belong to them. Undoubtedly they are used very often as an aide mémoire for their eyes only. I understand from medical colleagues that it is not uncommon to find O/E, NOD and NAD on an elderly person's notes. I understand that on translation those initials stand for "On examination; nice old duck, nothing abnormal detected". It is also
1212
not uncommon to find in the right-hand corner of notes used in family planning clinics F/F, meaning feckless and fertile. Under the provisions of the Bill we shall lose such medical quips. I believe that few will grieve for them and that their loss will be more than recouped through consumer satisfaction.
I appreciate the argument that there are some sensitive matters which should not be disclosed to patients but which may need to be written on the notes. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who has had a distinguished career in the medical profession, culminating in the presidency of the General Medical Council, will highlight some of those areas.
Two examples come easily to my mind; first, a tentative diagnosis when perhaps a doctor wants to put in the record something like cacinoma but does not wish to reveal it to his patient and his or her family for fear of the distress that it may cause, and, secondly, an opinion, perhaps of suspected child abuse, which is deemed relevant but which, if revealed, could be damaging to the dynamics of a family, possible causing break-up. However, similar challenges have already been faced by social services departments which have been obliged to open up their records. Indeed some departments have been running the system for three years. Their experience has shown that records are now factual, accurate and a useful tool of communication, not only between professionals but, perhaps more importantly, between clients and social workers.
There is growing recognition that people want to take more responsibility for their own lives. And, to be quite frank, the Secretary of State, through his agents, the health authorities, is a careless guardian of our records. When I chaired the Brighton health authority we found in a survey that at any one time 20 per cent. of X-rays were missing. Yet in Portsmouth, when an obstetrician, Mr. Frank Murray, ran a pilot scheme whereby women held their own records, out of 11,000 cases only three files were lost. One was destroyed in a house fire, the second lost in a flood. The third—the loss of which noble Lords may think was a little careless—was eaten by the dog.
For the 10 years that I have worked in the NHS, medical records have loomed large as a cause of irritation between the people we serve and medical staff. But this Bill, which contains correct safeguards for special cases, is in line with other legislation. It will remove one annoyance that can spoil the trust between people and their doctors. Perhaps I am hopeful enough and young enough to look forward to the future when we shall be considering the wisdom of letting people keep their own records. That might encourage a few hypochondriacs and a few health bores but it would lift a huge load off the NHS. I realise of course that the Bill does not go that far at the moment and that a more courageous step at this time would probably be unacceptable to the medical profession whose co-operation in implementing the Bill we so clearly need.
In conclusion, perhaps I may be bold enough at the very outset of my time in your Lordships' House to commend this admirable though modest measure which I have long hoped to see on the statute book.
2.4 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, it is my very pleasant duty on behalf of the whole House warmly to congratulate the noble Baroness on her thoughtful, perspicacious and enjoyable maiden speech, which was so charmingly and splendidly expressed and so lucid in every moment. She has had a most distinguished career in the National Health Service as chairman of the Brighton Health Authority, now as chairman of the South-West Thames Regional Health Authority and as a past chairman of the National Association of Health Authorities. But she is someone of many parts, having contributed not only to the health service, to which her contributions are beyond praise, but also to local affairs in her own county. Indeed if I were to recite or to attempt to recite the many offices which she has held, the many important distinctions that have been conferred upon her, I would be in danger of detaining your Lordships for far too long. We know that she will contribute outstandingly to future debates.
The noble Baroness lists as her recreations other people's gardens. But I would judge that she is so well organised and so splendidly efficient a person that she looks after her own garden with an efficiency equal to that with which she has served the nation and the health service. We look forward to hearing much more from her in the months and years to come.
I am advised that the General Medical Council considers that the overall objective of the Bill is worth while. It is the General Medical Council's view that the doctor/patient relationship is founded on a mutual trust which can be fostered only when the information is freely exchanged between doctor and patient on the basis of honesty, openness and understanding. It would wish to encourage any practice which contributed towards such a beneficial exchange of information. That is certainly a view that I share.
The opportunity for patients to correct any inaccuracies which might find their way into their medical records would be an obvious gain as would anything which discouraged doctors from recording comments which might be their personal opinion but which did not properly belong in an individual's medical records. However, the proposal might bring some losses as well as very substantial gains.
The introduction of a statutory right of access will inevitably lead to some changes in the essential character of medical record keeping. Many things may improve but there is a risk that if patients can demand access to everything written about them by doctors, whether factual or speculative, some doctors may feel inhibited from keeping full and frank records to the ultimate disadvantage of both. There is a fear that that could encourage a defensive attitude on the part of some doctors not only towards the preparation of written records but towards the practice of medicine itself, with doctors increasingly mindful of the possibility of future litigation. Moreover, anything which affects the comprehensiveness of medical records will have implications for the emerging arrangements to establish, throughout the profession, a system of medical audit by way of peer review which,
1214
particularly in general practice, will need to rely heavily upon the scrutiny of full patient case notes.
I am told that at two recent meetings the GMC endorsed the view taken by its committee on standards of professional conduct and medical ethics—a committee which has three lay members—that the decision as to whether patients should have a right of access to their records was one for society as a whole and therefore a question to be decided ultimately by Parliament. The council's concern, and mine, is to ensure that any such decision is taken in the light of full public debate and of consideration of the likely losses, as well as the potential gains, of introducing changes such as those proposed in the Bill.
Perhaps I may now draw your Lordships' attention to two particular provisions of the Bill which I believe might benefit from further detailed consideration. The first relates to the exclusion of the general right of access,
"to any part of the record which, in the opinion of the holder of the record, would disclose information likely to cause serious harm to the physical or mental health of the patient or any other individual".
I am told that the GMC's standards committee was greatly disturbed by the lack of consideration of the question of what response a doctor may or should make to a patient who asks whether—and, if so, for what reason—any information has been withheld from a record to which access has been granted. On the one hand, the knowledge that information has been suppressed, without any explanation of the reason, may well be much more distressing to a patient than to receive no information at all. On the other hand, for a doctor to seek to mislead patients, directly or indirectly, into believing they had received an unexpurgated copy of their records when this was not the case would run totally counter to the spirit of data protection/access legislation and would militate against an atmosphere of trust between doctors and patients.
I accept that an earlier provision in the Bill, requiring patients to be told when something is withheld from what they are shown, has now been dropped following the passage of an amendment in another place. However, that does not solve the basic difficulty. The consequences could be potentially serious, not so much for doctors as for patients, especially perhaps for those suffering from a mental condition causing them to lack insight and to suspect others of writing down derogatory information about them.
The second matter which I think calls for clarification is the introduction, through amendments to the Bill which were tabled on behalf of the Government in another place, of provisions which would actually prohibit the granting of access to records in some circumstances. At present doctors enjoy discretion as to whether or not to let patients see their records. I have heard no explanation of the proposed provisions regarding circumstances in which access shall not be given without regard to the doctor's opinion as to the desirability of granting such access.
For example, in the case of patients who are under the age of 16 years, or who are incapable of managing

1215
their own affairs, it seems that a doctor who obtains information in circumstances where the patient expects that that information will not be disclosed to any third party who may be empowered to apply for access to the record—such as a parent or a court-appointed guardian—would actually be prohibited from subsequently acceding to the application for access made by such a third party, even if the doctor were to judge it to be in the patient's best interest to allow the application.
I understand that the GMC's approach to the disclosure of confidential information is that there can be no absolute guarantee that a doctor will maintain professional confidence in all circumstances. However, a doctor who takes a decision to disclose information without the patient's consent must be prepared to justify that decision. I wonder whether the relevant amendments to the Bill are intended to indicate that Parliament believes that it is improper for a doctor to disclose information about a patient to relatives, or other interested third parties, in any circumstances. I am sure that that is not the intention, but I believe that that point should be clarified.
The proposition that a doctor should not have discretion to allow such persons access to the record seems to raise that possibility. However, I also note that the Secretary of State may by regulations lay down other circumstances in which the record holder will not be allowed to grant access to records. I should like to ask what other circumstances may be envisaged and with what justification.
Whatever Parliament should decide, I am informed that the General Medical Council will advise doctors to comply fully with the requirements of the law. However, I believe that it is in everyone's interests that there should be a full debate before arrangements are finally introduced which would significantly change some of the ways in which medicine is practised.
I have one final point upon which I would welcome the Minister's views. It relates to the requisite period provided in Clause 3(2) within which the holder of a health record must give access to it, if access is appropriate. That requisite period runs from the date of application, which is 21 or 40 days depending upon the circumstances. The profession is concerned that the date of the application might not be construed as the date upon which the doctor received it. A single-handed practitioner might go on holiday for two or three weeks or might be away for some time due to illness. The locum would not be the holder of the record and could not act on that doctor's behalf. The doctor could then find himself or herself inadvertently in breach of the Act. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that the requisite period will run from the date of receipt of the application by the record holder. With those comments, I support the Bill.
2.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am glad to be able to make my maiden speech on a Bill so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs, and following the eloquent and persuasive speech
1216
of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, whose richness of experience in the health service we all admire and few of us can emulate. If it is not impertinent for a maiden speaker to congratulate a previous maiden speaker, perhaps I may also say how much I welcomed and enjoyed her remarks. It is also a pleasure to make a maiden speech to a maiden Bill which I hope your Lordships will agree is transparently virtuous. It is a Bill attested to in its support by some 70 organisations ranging from the Royal College of Nursing to the Townswomen's Guild, some 80 per cent. of GPs surveyed and some 90 per cent. of their patients. It is a Bill, in other words, with a wide track of support.
The Bill is consistent with all-party social policy on at least two counts. It brings, as my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, have said, health service manual records into line with computerised records. It also brings health service records into line with those of housing, the social services, local government, and, shortly, education, all of them equally sensitive services and all of them services that need to network their information and to share it with their clients if the most effective counselling and support is to be offered.
The Bill withholds information that a doctor judges would pose serious harm to the patient, and it exempts information which is held on manual records before the Bill's implementation—a principle of no retrospective legislation which I understand we hold dear. That means that the Bill protects the patient's best interests and perhaps the doctors past idiosyncrasies. What could be more virtuous than that?
I support the Bill on two broad grounds. Perhaps I may spend a moment in speaking to each of them. The first is that of utility, and the second that of rights. On utility, doctors see some 150 patients a week. It is not surprising if errors creep into the record. When patients move home and GP, their notes follow them as do sometimes the notes of their father or neighbour or another patient with the same name. Teetotallers are told to give up drink; and hepatitis may not be recorded. Yet those records are a paper shadow which follows us through the health care system all our lives. It is essential that they are correct. The patient's scrutiny will help to ensure that they are correct.
When many years ago I first chaired the housing committee in the City of Norwich we held confidential files on tenants. In one of them was a newspaper cutting which showed that a tenant had been charged with a serious offence. The file did not contain the cutting which showed that he had been acquitted of that offence. That might have deformed our letting policy to the tenant's detriment and without his knowledge. Similarly, another file contained the casual comments of a male rent collector on the housekeeping standards of a lone parent. In a form of almost cultural colonialism at a stroke it turned a struggling, deserted mother into a potential problem family. We opened up and cleaned out those records and thereby made them more properly professional and objective, which I am sure is what will happen in medicine.

1217
We may not again see a doctor writing a prescription for Valium in which he wrote to the chemist, "Take as you please, as nothing I say will make any difference". That of course ended up on the medicine bottle. I have experiences similar to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. There were other records such as the initials in a certain doctor's file: PBM, NFN. Did PBM stand for post bronchial meningitis? We hope not. Was NFN an abbreviation for non-fatal necrosis? Probably not. No, my Lords, PBM stood for "poor biological material". NFN, I blush to say, was "normal for Norfolk". I regret that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is not here to share my unease at such initials.
With access to his records, a patient will also acquire more information about his health. As my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs said, three-quarters of the parents of mentally handicapped children and a large number of patients with coronaries, cancer or multiple sclerosis symptoms believed that doctors withheld information from them. They may not have been right; but they needed to know, and they needed to know that the full information was available if they were to plan their care. Even where doctors fully brief their patients, it is difficult for people under stress and under the weather to recall even a fraction of what they have been told. Yet to hold and read the records in a waiting room beforehand or to take a copy home with them to discuss with their family—especially if they are elderly—may be both reassuring and allow them to absorb the information that they need in peace and quiet and in their own time.
Patients thereby become more effective partners in their own health care, Anti-natal clinics regularly expect women now to hold their own obstetric records. Fears have been expressed about whether this is an appropriate strategy for psychiatric patients. Yet I was taught, when I was a member of the regional health authority, that getting patients to understand their illness may itself be part of their treatment. In a fascinating study in 1988 of two locked wards, it was found that in one ward patients had access to their records and counselling on them. The patients in that ward experienced anger occasionally, sadness very often. But it was not in doubt that they and the staff thought that they had benefited.
However, above and beyond these arguments of utility, lie the second cluster of arguments on which I suggest the Bill should be supported. That is, citizens' rights. Again as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege and my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs, said, at the heart lies the question: whose records are they? Are they the doctor's or the patient's? Are they the doctor's aides-mémoire or are they the patient's paper shadow through the health care system?
The Bill presumes a patient's property in his or her own health and therefore in the records of his or her health. It thus assumes that patients are moral adults in the most profound sense, that they are healthy and not sick; adult and not dependants; citizens and not merely passive recipients of care.
Not all doctors will find that thought necessarily comfortable. I sympathise. When the Data
1218
Protection Act was introduced, I was chairman of the examining body at my university. We had to make available to students all the information that existed about examinations. We were quite sure that giving them that information would fetter our free and unbridled judgment; interfere with our discretion; and that students would be the poorer for not having our discretion and our free and unfettered judgment. Nonetheless, we were a law-abiding university, at least in the faculty. As a result, we took still greater care with our grades. We drew up guidelines; we tried to explain how medical evidence was deployed, how discretion was exercised. What seemed impossible on Monday, was in place on Tuesday and working on Wednesday. Now we could not think of going back to mystifying students with the examination procedure, and no longer treating them as adults and partners in their own education.
As in education, so in local government which has rightly become more citizen-centred. We see—and rightly so—local citizens sitting on local committees. They enjoy a transfer of knowledge and therefore of power in determining the services to which they are entitled. As we know, knowledge is empowering and enabling. The same applies to health, to our bodies and to ourselves. Noble Lords would hardly have expected a maiden speech on this topic from this side of the House without a reference to Nye Bevan, who founded the National Health Service. As Nye Bevan said, the purpose of power is to give it away. This Bill, by sharing the power of knowledge, offers a partnership between doctor and patient between consenting adults. That is why I am happy to make my maiden speech in support of the Bill.
2.25 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, it is my enviable privilege and my very great pleasure to be the first to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, and to be the second to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on their elegant, instructive and witty maiden speeches. I should add that this is also my own maiden exercise of that privilege.
As your Lordships will know, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has wide experience in public office. She was a member of the East Anglian economic planning council, the regional health authority and the regional advisory committee. Later she was a member of the Norfolk County Council. She is currently a national commissioner for English Heritage. I hope that she will regard it as within her remit to preserve your Lordships' House totally intact!
Friday is not always a popular day for attending your Lordships' counsels. However, on this occasion I am more than glad that I did so. I am sure that all your Lordships feel the same. It has been well worthwhile. I am sure that I speak for all your Lordships when I say that we look forward to many further occasions when we may have the pleasure of listening to the stylish contributions to our debates of the two noble Baronesses.
I now turn to the Bill which I welcome. I intend to speak only on one short point which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. It

1219
is a minor point. I wish to make the suggestion that the draftsmen might be asked to consider this point before the Committee stage. As your Lordships know, Clause 3 deals with the right of access to medical and health records. Clause 3(4), (5) and (6) contain certain time limits. Those time limits are all measured from what is described as the "date of the application".
By virtue of Clause 11, an application has to be made in writing. Therefore one has to ask oneself, as did the noble Lord, Lord Walton, what is meant by the date of the application in that context. There are three candidates as regards an explanation. The date of the application could mean the date the application is signed. That will probably be the date which appears on the application. It could mean the date when the application is placed in the post, as appears to be the law in the case of certain applications for vehicle licences. It might also mean the date when the application reaches the holder of the medical records, and that is the date that I would favour. However, I suggest that that is a point which might be considered by the draftsmen and clarified in Committee.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I too shall be very brief. As another medical member of your Lordships' House I want to endorse my noble friend Lord Walton's approval of the Bill. I also applaud most warmly both of the maiden speeches that we have had the pleasure of hearing. They have fulfilled the criterion of being non-controversial but have by no means lost bite, humour or wisdom in fulfilling that criterion.
The need for the Bill has been very well outlined by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs. The Bill as it stands is the result of much detailed co-operative work between the original sponsor, Doug Henderson MP, the British Medical Association and the Department of Health, and I am sure also the General Medical Council.
An essential provision of the Bill, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Hollis, is Clause 5(1)(b) which in general disallows access to health records made before the commencement of the Act. As my noble friend said, it thus fulfils the need to avoid retrospective legislation. Up until now opinions recorded by health professionals have been written in the confident expectation that they would not be seen by the patient concerned except with the permission of the doctor, nurse, or whoever it may be. Whether justified or otherwise—a derogatory remark is seldom if ever justified—a carte blanche opportunity for patients to skim through past records to pick up scurrilous remarks could lead to bad feeling and possibly to tedious litigation. It is not very difficult to agree with that important subsection of the Bill.
I freely admit to writing remarks in patients' notes which could be held to be derogatory, or, to be more polite, idiosyncratic as my noble friend described it, in the past. If a patient talks excessively and exceeds the appointment time I might have recorded that the patient was irritating, boring, or suffered from verbal diarrhoea. From now on the proper form must be to record perhaps that they appear to be
1220
tense or anxious and to speak under intense verbal pressure.
There are some difficulties, of course. For example, my noble friend Lord Walton and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, mentioned there will be some difficulty about what to record and what not to record. I am thinking, for example, of the word "garrulous". It is almost an accepted part of medical terminology but some patients might very well object to being so labelled. Certain Members of your Lordships' House might feel that way.
One lesson that I learnt quite early in my medical career was to be very careful about what I wrote in referral letters, particularly if the letter was to be handed to a patient who was to go to a consultant for a hospital referral. Those letters were inevitably read, even if sealed. I have always been very careful to use objective, inoffensive terminology and to avoid judgmental remarks in those letters. From now on that should be the criterion for all medical notes and letters. It does not mean, however, that potentially difficult or painful information must be left off the record. Obviously, it cannot, but health professionals must be prepared to justify everything that they write down to the patient or the patient's family. Sometimes, advice—for example, to stop smoking or drinking—does not have as great an impact when given verbally as when it is written down.
There are one or two points of detail which the British Medical Association still thinks are in need of clarification. They have been covered by previous speakers including my noble friend Lord Walton and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, so I do not need to expand on them. Reference has been made to the date of application and I wish to ask the noble Baroness to expand on that point so that the date of receipt might become the date from which the period starts.
Clause 5(3) states that access to the health record shall not be given to the parent of a child or to the court or the representative of a deceased person when access would disclose information that had been given in confidence to the health professional concerned. To me that seems appropriate. A child may often confide in a doctor since that doctor, nurse or other health professional may be the only responsible adult to whom that child has access and it is right that that confidence should be retained. The doctor or other health professional would be in the best position to judge whether giving that information in the record will be in the child's best interests and similarly in the interests of a deceased person's reputation or estate.
In conclusion, this is a useful piece of legislation. I should like to see it as a step on the road to an increased holding of patients' records by the patients themselves, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, suggested. That has certainly been done with success in far less sophisticated societies than ours. Mothers in African villages have been shown to look after their records much better than hospitals and far fewer of them are lost. Experiments are being done in this country with that form of record keeping and they should be expanded. I commend the Bill to the House.
2.38 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty. As a member of the usual channels, I am aware that I must set certain good examples to the House. One of the examples that I must set is to follow the rule that only the immediately succeeding speaker after a maiden speech is supposed to comment on that maiden speech, so I must confine myself to saying that I have never felt quite so upstaged in the Chamber in my life. Noble Lords will be spared at least two-thirds of the speech that I had intended to make, given the remarks made by the two noble Baronesses this afternoon.
It is a great pleasure to support the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, in presenting the Bill to the House. She rightly said that I enjoyed her full support on the two occasions when I had the pleasure and privilege to bring freedom of information Bills before the House. They were the Access to Personal Files Bill 1987 and the Access to Medical Reports Bill 1988, both of which were initiated in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Archy Kirkwood.
At the time of the 1987 Bill, the Government were not ready to accept legislation in relation to access to medical records and preferred a voluntary approach. We all understood that. It was quite right and proper that one should obtain the agreement of the medical profession. However, after much discussion, I think that now we all agree that the time has come to put these matters on to the statute book. One is glad that the Government are in a position to support the legislation: I am sure that the noble Baroness is doubly glad of their support.
As has been said, we should start from the premise that People have the right to know the state of their own bodies and that only in exceptional circumstances should they be denied that knowledge. It seems to me that the Bill pitches the balance just about right in relation to those two propositions. It will encourage honesty and greater accuracy if patients have the opportunity to check the information on their records.
When I presented the Access to Medical Reports Bill, I gave an illustration which perhaps I might instance again today. A certain government Minister tried to obtain details of her own medical record with regard to the last occasion on which she had had a smear test. At the time she was examining some wonderful new equipment. She asked to have that information dug out of the equipment: it was incorrect. She said, "Try again". Again, it was wrong. In the end it was found that the Minister's National Health Service number was wrongly recorded within the system. The lady in question was Mrs Edwina Currie. After that, we got some action.
One cannot expect doctors to be perfect in this matter of keeping records. Indeed, they do not pretend that they are perfect. I should not dare to use the following words were they not a quotation from the professor of general practice at Manchester University who in 1986 wrote in the British Medical Journal:
"With a few honourable exceptions, medical records (hospital or general practice) are a disgrace … Perhaps sharing records would inculcate much needed discipline in the profession's record-keeping".
1222
That statement should not be taken as a slur on the medical profession. It is a fact of life that the ability of patients to check their records will be a help not only to them but to the doctors.
Some hesitation has been evident in the views expressed. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. It is a matter of getting the balance right. My feeling is that the Bill has it as right as it can be. However, I think that we need some reassurance from the Government Front Bench—today if possible—on the interpretation that the Government expect to be laid on some of the words of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred to cases in which the health record should not be given to a patient. I took the liberty of asking for the views of the British Medical Association. It sees the problem but says:
"Our interpretation is that the Bill does not impinge on the doctor's discretion. He or she would not be prevented from revealing such information verbally about a child if he felt that disclosure was in the best interests of the child.
Perhaps the Minister will reinforce that view as a proper interpretation of the Bill as the Government see it.
There are worries on all sides about the date at which the application shall be deemed to have been laid before the medical or health practitioner. I remember that this subject came up during the Access to Medical Reports Bill. Again the difficulty was solved by a statement to the effect that it was the date on which it was received by the practitioner. I hope that the Minister can give that reassurance again today.
It would be unfortunate if we had to come back at a later stage to amend the Bill. In the light of the very tight parliamentary timetable, it is important that the Bill goes forward if possible unamended. I hope that those reassurances from the Government and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, herself will go a long way to dispel the disquiet that may be felt in certain circles.
With those few remarks I commend the Bill to your Lordships. Perhaps I may be extremely naughty and say how much I enjoyed the two maiden speeches.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I have never been to Ascot but I know that many noble Lords and noble Baronesses go there for Ladies Day. It would be nice if some of them had come here today because undoubtedly it has been Ladies Day in the House of Lords. It has been an historic event. The Bill was presented by a noble Baroness; two noble Baronesses have made their maiden speeches; and another noble Baroness will reply to the debate. My researchers tell me that during the centuries of history of your Lordships' House it is the first time that such an event has occurred.
What a team they have been! I am not a Chief Whip and have no notions, but I shall refer to the noble Baronesses by name. My noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs has made a remarkable contribution since she became a Member of this House. She has been active in many areas; for example, in family

1223
issues, child welfare and moral and social problems. She has also been concerned with poverty and the new under class in Britain and involved internationally with UNICEF, overseas development and human rights. I cannot think of such a relatively new Member of this House who has made her mark so well both here and overseas. The Bill is her fourth Private Member's Bill and she has presented it extremely well.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham in our city of Norwich in our county of Norfolk. I first realised her sound judgment in 1972 when she helped to secure my nomination as Labour candidate. I thought, what sagacity, judgment and timing she possessed. She has a wide knowledge and experience of housing, education, health, welfare and all aspects of government, local and national. As regards the Labour Party, the noble Baroness first came to national attention as adviser to the late Tony Crosland when he was Secretary of State for Education.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has made a major contribution to policy formation and management within the National Health Service. She was both a district and regional health chairman. However, she will be remembered in the service as a whole more for her contribution in her report on nursing and the community and for her chairmanship of the National Association of Health Authorities. If, in some way, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is responsible for my being here, I should like to think that I can claim some responsibility for the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, being here. As Secretary of State I first persuaded her to accept responsibility within the National Health Service and she has made an outstanding contribution.
Both speeches were examples of their kind. They contained charm, elegance, personal attraction, a sense of humour and appositeness. We wish to hear a great deal more from both noble Baronesses. We have been a little short on some Benches—I am thinking in particular of the Benches opposite—of experts on the health service. However, it is lovely to have a new influx of Members, although unfortunately at a time when the health service Bill has almost completed its passage through your Lordships' House.
Last night I had a dream. I had gone to heaven and was suddenly touched on the shoulder by an awesome figure; it was St. Peter. He said, "David"—we were on Christian name terms—"in Britain the people are sad and are in distress. They are tired of a male chauvinist government led by a woman. They want to try an experiment in reverse; they want to have a female government led by a man. Please submit your list of Ministers". I replied, "Peter, I have the list of Ministers pinned inside my ermine gown". "Read on", he said. I began, "Baroness Castle". He said, "She's not yet one of us". I said, "The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs". "Of course", he said. I then mentioned the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Cumberlege. St. Peter said, "Who are they?". I said, "Read Hansard tomorrow morning".
1224
After four minutes I have not left a great deal of time for the Bill but little is needed to be said by me. It is a major step forward in the freedom of information. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs, and Douglas Henderson in another place, for picking it up and adding this new dimension. The noble Baroness has long had an interest in accessibility of information, and has supported the Bill which was initiated by the noble Baroness Tordoff. There have been questions of mistaken identity—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, perhaps I may intervene. Just for the sake of the record, it may be Ladies' Day but the noble Baroness Tordoff is still, noble or not, a Lord!
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I do apologise. It is so easy to make these mistakes at moments of tension and pressure.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am not sure that that helps!
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it is the best that the noble Lord will get. However, I apologise most sincerely.
There are many cases of mistaken identity. One hears of the patient who was described as suffering from a duodenal ulcer. In fact the patient's mother had the ulcer in 1947 but the letter about her had become mixed up in the file. A student was described as being prone to convulsions following an operation to remove a brain tumour, but the GP had sent the University Health Centre someone else's notes by mistake. There are many such cases. If the Bill improves the quality of information and the ability of a patient to understand his own condition, as I believe that it will, that is its importance.
So often in the past we have felt that we have been left in the dark. People have not treated us as human beings who need to know. If one has health problems—and I have had many and continue to have them—one needs to know if one has to face up to those problems.
One or two minor problems arise. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for mentioning problems referred to by the General Medical Council—and they must be treated seriously. I too had seen what the Council had said, and the BMA. I thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, was right. Perhaps there could be a short meeting with the professions, the noble Baroness and noble Lords. If agreement can be reached, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that it would be nice if we could have assurances so that we did not have to have a protracted Committee stage, and possibly no Committee stage. The noble Lord spoke as a Chief Whip and I therefore associate myself with that hope.
Some concern was expressed about Clause 2 of the Bill which refers to clinical and child psychologists. There was some worry about the definition of a clinical or child psychologist. I do not believe that there is basis for real concern but I know that it has been expressed. I said that I would raise it so that the

1225
Minister can make some comment at the appropriate moment.
I believe that the Bill is entirely to be welcomed. It is refreshing that it has come to us in this way. It is a good example of people taking time to get matters right. I wish that the other Bill with which we have been dealing was a further example of that. I believe that the noble Baroness has consulted and obtained the support needed. She has brought us together for a Bill that we all welcome. I warmly support her initiative.
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, when speaking informally with me the other day, referred to having overheard I suspect a rather chauvinistic noble Lord saying that this place is becoming too heterosexual. I take it that the remark was made in response to the number of lady Peers.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, someone told me that homosexuals did not feel at home here. As one who supported the Wolfenden Report when it was published, when no one would touch it, I was upset by that news.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I took the remark as being a slip of the tongue and that it was a response to the number of ladies entering the Chamber. I have to say, along with many other noble Lords today, that we have had a veritable feast of maidens this morning. My noble friend Baroness Cumberlege gave a very lucid, sensitive and perceptive speech bringing to bear a wealth of experience in a most effective way. Along with others I acknowledge her outstanding contribution to the National Health Service and other public offices.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, who is not only a friend but a fellow East Anglian, also brought to bear a wealth of experience of local government, education and the health service; she delivered her speech with a delightful wit and an enormous amount of information was contained within it.
Both noble Baronesses called upon a positive reservoir of practical information in support of the Bill. Their contribution to the debate has been most valuable. The richness, sensitivity and wisdom, delivered with such great style by both noble Baronesses, will add much to debates in the Chamber. Without hesitation I can say that all noble Lords look forward to their involvement in our future debates.
A number of questions were posed to me and if the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, will forgive me, and with her agreement, I will respond to them. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, queried how the date of application would be determined. My information is that the application is made when the person to whom it is addressed receives it. Legal advice on that question is a matter of interpretation. If the application is made in a letter, properly addressed, stamped and posted then the onus would
1226
be upon the addressee to show that it had been delivered. I defer to the greater legal expertise of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, but that is my understanding of the position. If I have not properly explained it I will write to the noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, also asked how a doctor was expected to respond to a patient who asked whether any information was being withheld. Clause 5, which denies the patient access if he or she could be seriously harmed by the information contained in the record, is similar to a provision which already protects patients under the Data Protection Act 1984. I am not aware that that question has caused any problems regarding computer-held records. I see no reason why it should do so when the information is manually recorded. However, how a doctor handles the question can be left to his or her discretion. Telling the questioner that access provided for under the Act has been allowed cannot be seen to be misleading.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, also asked how a doctor's discretion to disclose information is maintained when he or she is prohibited from disclosing to a third party information which a patient has given on the expectation that it will not be so disclosed. The Bill does not prohibit the disclosure of information to a third party in circumstances where the doctor currently has a discretion to disclose information. Clause 5(3) provides that a third pary has no right under the Bill to access in those circumstances. Equally, it does not prohibit the doctor from giving access. In many cases such disclosure would be a breach of confidentiality, but in exceptional circumstances a doctor could decide, as at present, that the need of the third party seeking information outweighed the duty of confidentiality.
Clause 5(3) states:
"Where an application is made … access shall not be given under subsection (2)".
That does not bite upon the wide clinical discretion of a doctor to act in the best interests of his patients.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, specifically asked about Northern Ireland. I entirely take her point that the principles of access should apply throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. I shall pass on that point to my right honourable friend who can extend the Bill's application when it becomes an Act by an Order in Council.
I am glad to confirm the Government's support for the Bill and congratulate the sponsors for their success in getting the Bill this far. The Bill is consistent with the principle of access by individuals which has been established under the Data Protection Act and subsequently confirmed by the Access to Personal Files Act 1987 and the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988.
The Bill is intended to give people the right to have access to their own health records whether in the public or the private sector. The Government have been consistent in maintaining the principle that patients should have greater access to their health records. The issue was last formally before Parliament in 1987. Medical records were then excluded from the provisions of the Access to

1227
Personal Files Act as a result of extensive lobbying by the medical profession which persuaded Members of this House and another place that non-statutory access arrangements concluded in co-operation with the profession had advantages over a statutorily-provided access.
The Government therefore undertook to enter talks with the medical profession to see what could be achieved. After discussions which extended over two years with representatives of the medical profession a draft code on non-statutory access to health records was produced. This document was circulated widely for comments. The only reservations about the principle of access were raised by the medical profession itself. For this reason the Government concluded that agreement could not be reached on a non-statutory code which would match the expectations of the public and which would have the unequivocal support of the medical profession.
On 23rd February when the Bill was presented in another place for Second Reading my honourable friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State confirmed the Government's support for the principle of access and that we would not object to the Bill. As initially presented in another place the Bill contained a number of technical deficiencies and one or two points which were felt to be inappropriate. I am glad to advise noble Lords that co-operation between the sponsors and my department has enabled these problems to be overcome and this has resulted in the Bill which is before us today.
The provisions of the Bill are of great concern to the medical profession and its views on the advisability of allowing patients access to their own health records have been widely circulated. The Department of Health recognises that there is legitimate concern here and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health saw fit to bring these to the attention of Members in another place when he stated on 23rd May, while the Bill was in Committee:
"I wish to refer to the attitude of the medical profession. Sir Robert Kilpatrick, president of the General Medical Council, has confirmed to Ministers that the profession will not seek to oppose the will of Parliament on the issue. That is not to say that the General Medical Council is without deep concern about the changes to the character of medical records, which it feels are likely to follow the implementation of the Bill. The General Medical Council believes that those provisions are likely to lead to a lack of frankness in the written record to the ultimate disadvantage of both patient and doctor. It believes that the Bill will encourage a defensive attitude not only towards the preparation of written records, but towards the practice of medicine itself, with doctors being increasingly mindful of the possibility of future litigation. It also thinks that it could lead to doctors preferring to discuss with their colleagues important matters about a patient's health rather than preparing a full written record.
"The apprehensions of the medical profession must be brought to the Committee's attention, as they represent potential losses to the doctor-patient relationship."
The Minister confirmed the Government's acceptance of the Bill and having put on record the medical profession's concerns, he went on to say:
"I must also tell the Committee that the Government believe that gains will flow from the enactment of the legislation and that they will include greater accuracy in record keeping, a higher trust in the medical profession and an enhancement of the
1228
doctor-patient relationship. Ultimately, the House must decide where the balance of the argument lies, but the Government's attitude is clear."
All those points have been well put in the debate today.
Having emphasised the Government's position on the principle of access, I should also like to make clear that we shared some of the concerns expressed by the profession, particularly with regard to preserving the patients' interests and advising on access to records. I am glad that the sponsors of the Bill were more than willing to respond in a positive way in taking these issues on board. We now have a Bill the principal aim of which is to secure access to personal health information (subject to safeguards to protect individuals) by the people about whom that information has been recorded. It is clear that the aim of the Bill is widely supported, both in the country as a whole and in Parliament.
Reference was made to a possible meeting. Noble Lords will understand that I am standing in today for my noble friend Lady Hooper and I will pass that request to my noble friend because it is important that as much clarification should be brought to bear before the Commitee stage. I strongly urge your Lordships to give this Bill your support and not to impede its progress on to the statute book.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that in my opinion the date of application would be construed by a court as meaning the date when the application was received by the holder of the record to whom it is addressed. I would not regard it as essential to amend the wording in order to clarify any ambiguity.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that point is noted.
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to say how happy I am at the most favourable response that there has been to this Bill. Anyone who may have anticipated that it would be a rather dry subject would have been wrong. I do not think I have ever spent a Friday morning in your Lordships' House having a more enjoyable time or listening to better speeches. I am not going to pay any more compliments to the maiden speakers because I believe that every adjective has been used. They might get swollen heads if any more adjectives were used. I very much appreciated and enjoyed what they said in support of this Bill, and the way in which they said it.
I am so happy that there was complete agreement on the principle of the Bill: that we should move forward in increasing accessibility to information on account of the dangers of errors and because of the principle of citizens' rights.
I anticipated the few questions and anxieties that were raised, in particular about the date on which applications under the Bill are taken to be received. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who said that he is satisfied that the time starts on the date the application is received. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, will be happy with that.

1229
I was also very glad to hear that my noble friend Lord Rea is already contemplating improving his drafting style for his patients' records. That is a very good beginning. I am also most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for giving the history of the co-operation and search for agreement as regards this very complex and sensitive area, and how that was achieved. I am also grateful that she will pass on the message about the possibility of a meeting to clear up any remaining doubts or anxieties, as my noble friend Lord Ennals suggested. I shall be very happy for that to happen. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, we would prefer not to have amendments at Committee stage because there is a certain urgency about returning this Bill to the other place. As every speaker has agreed that it is an important and valuable Bill, I am quite sure that we would be very sad to lose it. I thank all noble Lords for making very valuable and attractive speeches. I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale)The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move. That the draft order laid before the House on 16th May be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order is one of a series of routine financial orders for Northern Ireland which come before the House each year. It authorises the expenditure of £2,496 million. This amount, when added to the £1,817 million voted on account for 1990–91 by your Lordships on 12th March, gives a total voted cash provision for Northern Ireland departments of £4,313 million for this financial year. This is within a public expenditure total for those departments of some £5,289 million. Your Lordships may wish to refer to the Northern Ireland 1990–91 Estimates booklet, which gives full details of the sums sought, and which is available from the Printed Paper Office.
It is appropriate that I should give a little explanation of those Estimates. I shall begin with the Department of Agriculture. The net provision sought in the two agriculture Votes amounted to some £144 million.
In Vote 1 some £35 million is for those national agricultural and fisheries support measures which apply throughout the United Kingdom. In addition to certain pre-funded market support schemes under the common agricultural policy, the Vote includes nearly £20 million for capital and other grants to assist structural improvements. These include grants to farmers for a range of effluent treatment, conservation and improvement works. A further £15 million is to provide support for farming in the less favoured areas, by means of headage payments on hill cattle and sheep.
Vote 2, covering local support measures, seeks provision of some £108 million in respect of the regional agriculture, fisheries and forestry services and support measures. Main elements of the Vote include some £46 million for agricultural, scientific and veterinary services. These include the agricultural and veterinary inspectorates, research and development work and the agricultural colleges, all of which make important contributions to the Province's agriculture industry. Some £27 million is for arterial drainage, fisheries and forestry programmes; and £11 million for the agricultural development programme.
I now turn to the Department of Economic Development. In Vote 1, some £111 million is sought to enable the Industrial Development Board to carry out its important industrial development activities. Your Lordships will be aware that IDB has had a number of recent successes in attracting good quality inward investment to the Province, and the Government continue to attach a high priority to strengthening the Northern Ireland economy through such measures. That is reflected in a number of indicators of sustained economic recovery in the Province. Output continues to rise, especially in manufacturing industry, which recorded an increase of almost 90 per cent. in 1989. The corresponding increase for the United Kingdom as a whole was about 5 per cent. At the same time, private service sector employment expanded, with welcome increases in 1989 in retail distribution and in hotels and catering. Unemployment in Northern Ireland continues to fall. In May 1990 unemployment in the Province stood at 97,700 or 14 per cent. of the workforce. That compares to a rate of 15·3 per cent. in May 1989 and is the lowest number unemployed since July 1982.
In Vote 2, some £143 million is sought to provide assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. That is primarily related to the privatisation of Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff. The House will recall that, under the terms of the agreement for the sale of Shorts to Bombardier, the Government offered Shorts a substantial package of grant aid over four to five years towards new capital investment, product development and training In 1990–91, £35 million is available to Shorts for this programme. A further £12 million is provided to meet losses and other costs associated with aircraft sales financing, obligations entered into by the company before its sale, responsibility for which has been retained by the Department of Economic Development. Similarly, under the terms of the Harland and Wolff privatisation, some £70·2 million is provided this year to assist the new company with restructuring, the cost of completing existing contracts and the building of the new Suezmax tankers, five of which are now on order.
Also in Vote 2, some £36 million is for the Local Enterprise Development Unit, Northern Ireland's small Business Agency. This represents the highest level of financial support ever for the agency and underlines the Government's commitment to helping small firms in Northern Ireland.
Vote 3 of the Department of Economic Development covers expenditure by the new

1231
Training and Employment Agency. It has a budget of some £166 million, and undertakes a wide range of activities, including the youth training programme, the action for community employment scheme, the job training programme and the manpower training scheme. The creation of the agency marks a very real advance in the way in which training and employment programmes are delivered. It will promote training as a central part of the Government's strategy to assist economic growth and increase the competitiveness of Northern Ireland firms and the workforce.
Your Lordships will have observed that the Department of the Environment has four Votes. As regards Vote 1, which covers roads, transport and ports, the sum of £162 million is sought. About £135 million of this is for the roads programme, the greater part of which is required to finance the operation and maintenance of the Province's roads system and to enable new construction and improvement works to be undertaken. Preparatory work continues on the Belfast cross harbour road and rail bridges project, with a view to starting construction in 1991.
Vote 2 covers the important area of housing, for which £185 million is required, mainly to provide finance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and to the voluntary housing movement. When net borrowing by the housing executive to fund its capital programme is taken into account, the Government's net public expenditure allocation for housing will be some £243 million in 1990–91. Supplemented by rental income and capital receipts, this will mean that gross expenditure on housing should be almost £506 million.
During the 1980s Northern Ireland enjoyed a high level of expenditure on housing and a good deal of progress has been made on reducing the high levels of unfitness. For example, dwelling unfitness levels fell from 14·1 per cent. in 1979 to 8·4 per cent. in 1987. On top of this improvement in housing conditions, progress has also been made on housing need. The size of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's urgent waiting list has been reduced by more than 50 per cent. since 1981 and, in the private sector, new house building has averaged over 7,000 starts in each of the last six years. In the last 10 years, the number of households in the Province increased by 100,000. That is welcome evidence of the success of the private and public sector housing efforts. Substantial resources will continue to be made available to the housing programme and government continue to regard housing as an important public expenditure programme in Northern Ireland.
Vote 4 includes £33 million for urban regeneration measures, aimed primarily at improving the economic health and environment of areas suffering from urban dereliction, which, despite the successes that I have just mentioned, still continues in parts, although obviously at a considerably lower level.
I now turn to the Estimates for the Department of Education, where a total of £997 million is sought. The schools sector, in Vote 1, accounts for 60 per cent. of this total. The provision includes an
1232
additional £22 million for 1990–91 to maintain the impetus on the recently introduced package of education reform in Northern Ireland. This is part of a total of £83 million which has been set aside for the reforms in the period up to 1992–93. These resources will ensure that schools and teachers are properly prepared and have the necessary facilities to implement the reforms.
Also included in Vote 1 is provision for the salaries and related costs of 18,888 full-time equivalent teaching posts in the current year, totalling £384 million. This will maintain the planned overall pupil/teacher ratio at the present level of some 18·3 per cent. In addition, £54 million is sought for lecturers in institutions of further education which will allow for 30 additional lecturing posts from next September.
Expenditure by the five education and library boards will amount to £314 million in the current year, on the day-to-day operation of the education service in Northern Ireland. The House will note that this is an increase of 9 per cent. over 1989–90 and includes special additions of £7 million for the maintenance of buildings and £3 million to improve standards of provision in the classroom. The sum of £45 million is also sought for education and library boards' capital provision.
In Vote 2, some £16 million is sought for expenditure on Northern Ireland's two universities, on the Open University and on teacher training. Grants to universities and awards to students are based on the principle of maintaining parity of provision with Great Britain. This provision also includes an extra £5·8 million for the student loans scheme, the arrangements for which will be in line with those in England and Wales.
The next set of Votes relates to the Department of Health and Social Services, for which department I have special responsibility. Total net provision of £940 million is sought for health and personal social services —£928 million in Vote 1 and £12 million in Vote 3—to maintain and improve the standard of the Province's health and personal social services. Within that total £758 million is for the health and social services boards to cover current expenditure, while £45 million is required to maintain a substantial programme of capital works and over £195 million is sought for the family practitioner services. Overall, public expenditure on the health and personal social services programme in 1990–91 will, for the first time, exceed £1 billion.
Vote 4 seeks £932 million for social security benefits. That figure includes £423 million for income support, £166 million for housing benefit and £14 million for payments into the social fund. The balance—some £329 million—is for family and non-contributory benefits.
Finally, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the Department of Finance and Personnel Vote 3, in which £1·25 million is sought for community relations purposes. When expenditure by the Department of Education is taken into account, it is planned to spend about £4 million on community relations projects in 1990–91. That figure includes £1·5 million to encourage

1233
cross-community contact; some £300,000 for the new community relations council, established in January to encourage and support those working to improve community relations; some £600,000 for a new programme to encourage district councils to promote improved community relations; and £1·4 million for the cultural traditions programme. The importance of improving community relations in Northern Ireland will, I am sure, be readily acknowledged and supported by the House.
I hope that the House has found that summary of the main components of the Estimates to be helpful. Nevertheless, it is inevitable that your Lordships will wish to ask questions which I look forward to answering in due course. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th May be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the debate is in a sense, as the Minister said, a routine debate; but, nevertheless, we are approving for Northern Ireland an important order which authorises the expenditure of £2.496 billion of public funds on services in the Province during the financial year 1990–91. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his full explanation of the main components of the order, although one cannot go along with the Government's underlying optimism about the state of the Northern Ireland economy.
This afternoon I wish to focus my comments on three matters. First, I want to speak about the disadvantaged in the city of Belfast, the capital city. I gladly acknowledge that in parts of the city, in particular in the city centre, there is evidence that some of the Government's policies are working. I also acknowledge that there is a widespread spirit of expectation that the Laganside development, again in the city centre, will be a success. However, there is another side to the coin. Many districts in the capital city are suffering from a kind of malnutrition, if I may use that word in this context. That is why I welcome the doubling of the funds allocated to the Making Belfast Work programme launched two years ago in support of the Belfast initiative programme which began in 1986.
Both programmes are targeted at the most disadvantaged areas in Belfast and bring benefit to both communities. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Northern Ireland Office and the Minister for the detailed arrangements that were made for my visit to the Province last Easter, at my request. I was much impressed by what I saw and heard of the programme, Making Belfast Work. I spelt a few hours in the company of one of the action team members in West Belfast. It seemed to me that here was a team working efficiently; it was not afraid of adopting, when necessary, a radical approach to resolve a local issue. The team leader himself was building up a bank of invaluable experience. Obviously here was the right man for the job.
Yet what troubled me was that after three years on the job he would be transferred. This seems to me to be a serious matter. When a key officer in a small
1234
team is transferred, is there not a likelihood that the effectiveness of the team will be adversely affected? Is there not a likelihood that there would be an interruption in communications and in the work that the team has been carrying out? May there be confusion? I wonder whether the Minister would care to comment on the thrust of those questions. When an obviously successful team is at work in such a situation, should not its commitments be extended to a term of at least five years?
It would be difficult to isolate the social problems of the deprived districts of Belfast from consideration of the problems facing the 13 to 18 year-olds in the city. It seems to me that much needs to be done for the youth services in Belfast. Of course there are the problems common to any big Western city—alcohol abuse, poor attendance at schools. vandalism, homelessness. But additionally in Belfast there is the entrenched high unemployment, the lack of employment opportunities; punishment from the paramilitaries; and, from what I am told, even punishment from law enforcement agencies, with all that that implies.
I believe that it is pregnant with significance that the overwhelming number of youth leaders in Belfast to whom I spoke confessed to a sense of frustration at the difficulty of obtaining more support. Many of them voiced withering criticism. I should also mention that this criticism emerged in the last annual report of the West Belfast Parent Youth Support Group and also in the last report of the Youth Action Northern Ireland. Thus the conclusions that I have drawn are not merely impressionistic conclusions after speaking to some youth leaders; they are borne out by those two reports.
I recall that the youth service is being refocused under the guidance of the newly created Youth Council of Northern Ireland. I see from the education vote that a sum of just under £2 million has been allotted to the youth service for the current financial year. I may have got my sums wrong; I may have misunderstood the table, but this figure is £250,000 above the provision made for the service 12 months ago. Nevertheless it is £50,000 below the outturn for 1988–1989. If I have that correct, I am bound to ask how the provision of the youth services can be maintained, let alone improved, although it is widely recognised that it is vital that they should be improved. Clearly the new youth council has a positive role to play. The education and library board and the employment and training agencies also have an important role to play. I wonder whether the Government intend to leave it to those organisations to pursue their objectives as best they can, or whether the Government themselves propose to take any action to ensure joint action or a more fully co-ordinated action between these authorities. Alternatively, is it the case that the Government are satisfied that one of the agencies will take the lead?
Having spent a little time on some of the problems of Belfast, I now wish to turn to the small towns, villages and hamlets in the rural areas of the Province. I believe that debates in another place have made it clear that there is worry and concern at the failure to channel more investment to develop the small towns and villages. Here is yet another

1235
problem. However, I am particularly encouraged by the provision of this token £1,000 in the Agriculture Vote for the purpose of identifying the needs of deprived rural areas and the means of assisting them. I very much welcome that small item in the Agriculture Vote.
It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us more about that item. I understand that an interdepartmental committee on rural development has been established. Can the Minister give us a definition of the areas which are considered by that committee? Is the committee considering how the district councils could do more to encourage development if they had additional powers, or if they had more funds at their disposal? Or is it confined—or has it confined itself—to a consideration of what more can be done in the context of the Government's policies for agriculture?
Drawing on my experience of rural Wales where I was brought up, I am conscious of the valuable contribution made by the Rural Development Board for Rural Wales which was set up in 1976 in the face of solid opposition by Whitehall departments. I am therefore prompted to ask whether the interdepartmental committee is considering whether the various strands of development can be co-ordinated by Stormont, or whether there is a need for a co-ordinating body, whether it be a statutory or a non-statutory body.
I now wish to discuss the economy of Northern Ireland generally. There is common consensus that the economic problems facing Northern Ireland are the most intractable in the United Kingdom. The latest assessment from the Northern Ireland Economic Council published in April forms no basis for optimism and certainly not for the optimism that was voiced by the Minister. A gloomy study was recently published by the Northern Ireland Economic Research Council. That council argues in favour of a deliberate policy of encouraging people to leave the Province. The research council recommends that the migration, which is currently about 7,000 a year, should be increased to 12,000 this year and to 17,000 each year thereafter until 1995. It recommends that people should leave for Swindon, Hamburg or elsewhere in Europe. That is the proposal.
Sadly, one accepts that there are currently far too many redundant shipyard workers and factory workers in the Province, and many of them may remain unemployed for some years to come. However, I assume that the Minister will be glad to take advantage of this opportunity to say that the Government totally reject the defeatism which is buried in the proposal of the research council and the suggestion that there should be a policy of exporting the children of the unemployed of Northern Ireland from the Province.
At the end of April the Department of Economic Development published a document entitled Competing in the 1990s: the Key to Growth In the words of the Minister for the economy the document sets out what he describes as the Government's new approach. The approach places emphasis on the need for a strong public and private sector partnership
1236
and the need to deepen and widen training and innovation. Those are the problems which are common to most, if not all, firms in the Province. Therefore we on these Benches fully endorse the new objectives—the new approach. However, perhaps the Minister will explain to the House why it is that after 11 years the Government have still not created a climate in which those problems can be resolved and those objectives can flourish. I wonder whether the Minister can point to clear and tangible evidence and not simply paper commitments or assertions that the Government, the department and the development agencies are fully committed to the new approach.
Success will also depend in great part on the ability of the Province to attract inward investment from the rest of the United Kingdom, from Europe and beyond. That, so it seems to us, requires the political stability which is missing. Political instability in Northern Ireland is persuading many potential investors that Northern Ireland is not just beyond the English Channel or the Irish Sea; it is, for many investors, far away, beyond an ocean. What is wanted above all is political stability.
We have all followed the shrewd, persistent and delicate efforts of the Secretary of State to bring the leaders of the constitutional parties to a conference table. People of good will everywhere welcome and fully support the efforts and the mission of the Secretary of State. It would appear that he has satisfied himself that there is now common ground between the parties and that an inter-party conference is not likely to blow up. If the political leaders can, during the coming months, come to a conference table and work out an agreed formula of reconciliation and peace that would be a dramatic change, holding out the prospect of a beneficial and lasting result for the Province.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I had expected other Members of your Lordships' House to intervene in this debate. Sitting here this afternoon I cannot help but contrast the atmosphere and the circumstances in which such an appropriation order is debated with the atmosphere in the Northern Ireland Parliament and the Assembly, of which I was a Member for a number of years. When an appropriation order was debated there every single Member of that Parliament or Assembly had something to contribute. They were aware of all the circumstances that prevailed in their constituencies, of the representations that had been made to them and of what they regarded as priorities. On many occasions the appropriation debate would spill over from one day to the next because so much interest and enthusiasm was shown by all the elected representatives at the Stormont Parliament and the Assembly.
Let us contrast that with the atmosphere here today. I do not blame the House for that atmosphere. If the Northern Ireland politicians and the two communities and their leaders cannot negotiate and bring about a set of circumstances in which it would be possible to debate appropriation orders in a

1237
locally based parliament, I do not think that the Government or either of the major political parties can be blamed for that.
The reason the appropriation order is being debated here this afternoon is that there is no political forum that engages the support of both communities in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that that the situation. I wish it were otherwise, but I cannot express the same degree of optimism that has just been expressed by my noble friend as to the outcome of the present negotiations of the Secretary of State, Mr. Brooke. I dearly wish that they would come to a successful conclusion, but I am cautious about the outcome. For all kinds of reasons in this tercentenary year of the Battle of the Boyne and all the other things that have happened in Irish history, there are great big mountains to be climbed before any negotiations can be successful.
As I do not have representations made to me as I would if I were an elected representative, I have to depend on what involvement I still maintain with Northern Ireland. I have just said to my noble friend beside me that I admire the tenacity of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and the enthusiasm with which he still freely concerns himself in the affairs of Northern Ireland. I am certain that, over a period of years, many other people with no Northern Ireland background would not have displayed the same enthusiasm.
In introducing the debate, the Minister said that over £5,000 million is spent on the upkeep of Northern Ireland. That is a tremendous sum of money for the Government to spend on the Province. It is approaching the total expenditure in the Republic of Ireland, which is a much larger area with a much larger population. I expressed amazement last year when trying to comprehend the amount of money involved, but there is now another £30 million or £40 million added to it.
In the run-up to the debate, I have tried to keep in touch as much as possible with affairs in Northern Ireland which are of interest to the people living there. Those everyday affairs guarantee the circumstances in which people live. I have already told the Minister of representations that were made to me by many people in the Antrim area about the Moyle Hospital. It may not seem much to people here. Indeed, the Moyle Hospital issue is about as relevant here as the Sea of Tranquillity, but if the debate were to take place in Northern Ireland we could discuss the issue for hours on end. It appears that the Department of Health and Social Services—in other words, government policy—is to close the Moyle Hospital and to transfer all its facilities to a new hospital in Country Antrim.
People who have been involved with the Moyle Hospital for many years, as well as eminent doctors representing medical opinion throughout Northern Ireland and in the Antrim area in particular, are bitterly opposed to the projected closure of the hospital. They have formed an action committee and have examined every facet of the hospital's existence and possible closure. That committee sent to the Minister, as well as to me and no doubt to Northern Ireland MPs, its conclusions on the
1238
hospital's possible closure. From what I have heard—I have spoken to a number of people about this matter—there has not been one single voice dissenting from the conclusions of that committee for retention of the hospital.
It appears that on receipt of the conclusions drawn up by that action committee the matter was referred to the Northern Health and Social Services Board in Ballymena. I believe—but possibly the information has been exaggerated—that the brochure was presented in such detail and the arguments were so constructive that the Northern Health and Social Services Board decided to set up a sub-committee to examine the information contained in that document.
I am not too sure whether the members of that sub-committee are civil servants or people from the board itself. I do not know how long it will take the committee to deliberate and arrive at a conclusion with regard to the contents of that report, but I ask the Minister whether he can possibly expedite its findings.
I should like to thank the Minister for answering some questions raised during our last appropriation debate. He replied to me in writing and I was then able to retail that information to those who had questioned me. Normally in this House the Minister who speaks for Northern Ireland represents the agricultural industry. I have no hesitation in saying, given my political background and the area in which I lived in Belfast, that I have absolutely no clues about the agricultural industry; nor am I terribly anxious to obtain any. However, the Minister is in charge of health and social services in Northern Ireland and I put this point to him. In view of the concern which has been expressed in relation to the possible closure of that hospital, it may become necessary for him to meet a deputation of all those involved in the compilation of the report. It would be a courtesy for him to meet those people, either here or in Belfast. I do not believe that the Minister would lose anything by listening to the concerns expressed by those personally involved.
Noble Lords will remember the debate that recently took place on education reforms in Northern Ireland. With a few reservations, we were 98 per cent. in support. Both Houses of Parliament were in support of those reforms. But they have not been implemented in the way they were hyped up. The main factor in selling those reforms in the education Act was that greater responsibilities were given to parents in relation to the education of their children. That was the way that they were sold by the education department in Northern Ireland and as such they were accepted by the population. But it has not worked out that way.
This past week I have seen a repeat of the representations that were made to me 35 years ago when I was a local councillor in Northern Ireland. Every year when the 11-plus examination was taking place all the parents of children who had failed their examination came to me. They told me that their children were budding Einsteins and the reason that they had not been successful in their 11-plus examination was that some form of discrimination

1239
had taken place. I understand that. In such a situation parents are very emotionally involved.
A repeat of those scenes is now taking place, although not in exactly similar circumstances. There are now four qualifications for entry into a grammar school. The first will cause no difficulty because those who pass with a grade 1 will gain admission. For those with grades 2 and 3 there will be slight doubts. Those with grade 4 will be totally rejected.
It appears that under the new legislation grammar schools can draw up their own criteria which is given to the Education and Libraries Board in Belfast. I believe that it is available to parents. However, the parents who spoke to me were unaware of that. If they had been aware they would have known the criteria involved and the possibilities of their children entering a particular grammar school.
This morning I spoke to a representative of a grammar school. He said that its criteria is readily available and that parents should read it. However, as the facts stand today the school would like to accept an additional 20 pupils but it does not have the space to do so. Therefore, those children must travel far away from their home to attend a different school. Their brothers or sisters may have gained admission to a grammar school, but they must take a different bus in the morning to go to a different school. I and the people to whom I have spoken believe that, where it is possible, brothers and sisters who have passed the examination with grade 1 or grade 2 should be given the opportunity to attend the same school. The fact that they cannot is determined by the number of places given by the education authority to the various schools.
During the past week I have spoken to many anxious parents. They were told that they would be given greater parental responsibility as regards sending their children to a school of their choice. However, they now find that they are unable to do so. An important part of the debates on educational reform which took place in this House and in another place concerned the climate of opinion in schools which were trying to break away from the religious and sectarian aspect. More schools in Belfast are trying to integrate and to abandon the bigoted divisions which exist in Northern Ireland. Parents want their children to attend such schools but discover that because of the lack of places they cannot do so. Today I must telephone a parent to tell her that the people to whom I spoke this morning realise that she is right in wanting her child to attend a particular school but that because of the lack of places she cannot do so. That is a most important aspect about which the Minister should be made aware.
It should be made clear to parents that they have the right to appeal against a school's decision not to admit their child, and that the appeal will be sent to the Education and Libraries Board. However, I advise them not to depend too much on the appeal. The only criterion at which the board will look will be whether the school has lived up to its legal requirements. If it has, there is nothing further to be done. That is a big issue for parents deciding the future of their children.
The Minister has been complimentary and has paid tribute to the Local Enterprise Development
1240
Unit. I have done so for many years in both Houses of Parliament. It is one of the best agencies to be set up by the Government. The fact that this year it is to be given £36 million is an indication that the Government recognise its worth. It is only a small unit but it has produced almost 6,000 jobs. I know some of the people who work for the unit. They do not do so because it is a job, but because for them it is a vocation. Those people are dedicated to Northern Ireland and trying to create as many jobs as possible.
The other issue is the waiting lists in hospitals, in particular the City Hospital and the Ulster Hospital in Belfast. The waiting list for the Ulster Hospital has increased by over 100 per cent. from last year. A waiting list for any hospital is a commentary on the sad circumstances of those whose names are on it. A waiting list in a hospital represents pain, isolation and fear. The more that we can do away with waiting lists, the more that we shall be doing away with such statistics.
All Northern Ireland MPs have spoken about electricity in Northern Ireland. I shall not go into the issue in great detail. I know that the Kilroot power station is to be completed in the near future. It will generate most of the electricity in Northern Ireland. I believe that I can put into words something that has not been said before which may be of interest to people in Britain. With the green attitudes now being evinced by both major political parties, there is great concern about sulphur emitted from the burning of coal. With EC recommendations and regulations it appears that the Government will now take that issue into consideration. I have been told that the high sulphur content of emissions from English coal from English coal mines is in conflict with the environmental process. That coal is at present being burned in the power station in Kilroot and at another power station in Northern Ireland. I have also heard that it would be cheaper to import coal which has less sulphuric content from either Australia or South Africa. It would therefore be more in line with environmental decisions that are about to be taken.
However, importing coal from South Africa or Australia could lead to even further erosion of the mining industry in Great Britain. I believe that the coalmining industry in Great Britain has suffered tragically over the past few years. One must look for a very good reason for importing coal, whether or not the argument that I have just advanced is true.
I now refer to the pipeline to take the gas found in the Morecambe field into Northern Ireland or Ireland. I believe that there are no political reasons for pumping it into the North or South. Energy does not provide political reasons. The gas, whether made available to the North or South and irrespective of where the pipeline emerges, would be a tremendous advantage to the people of Ireland.
I conclude these few remarks on a rather sombre note. We have deliberately excluded the question of security from the debates. That will be debated later. We have debated every other facet of life in Northern Ireland. Yet security is by far and away the issue that most confronts the Government in Northern Ireland, as has been said in another place.

1241
I listened to Radio 4 one morning last week. I heard the story of yet another peace line being erected in Duncairn Gardens in Belfast. That is a constituency that I used to represent in the Northern Ireland Parliament. The peace line is being erected to keep people from the Protestant side coming into conflict with people on the Catholic side; and the reverse. At a time when the Berlin Wall is coming down—I believe the last stones were removed only this morning—and when divisions are crumbling all over Europe, there does not seem to have been any marked effect on Northern Ireland. There are now 13 peace walls in the city of Belfast keeping the religious communities apart. That is a very sad commentary. The politicians of Northern Ireland, who Are elected by the people, should take into account that only by negotiating a means by which people are enabled to live together will the peace walls come down.
I could not conclude without mentioning another point. It will be said, "Do not say it. It is a sensitive issue. It may harm Anglo-Irish relations" and "Do pour oil on troubled waters". I and most other responsible people will have said, in view of the events that have taken place over the years but particularly during the past fortnight, that the extradition arrangements between Ireland and Britain are deplorable. Every excuse that can be dragged up has been used to explain why IRA and terrorist personnel have been freed by Dublin courts and why extradition has been refused. One reason was that the paperwork had not arrived on time. All that this means is that innocent men, women and children in this country and in Germany are being murdered by the IRA.
There will be a further opportunity to debate this subject, but a marker should be put down. I read in the press this morning that the Secretary of State, in answer to questions yesterday, said that a committee was being set up in Northern Ireland, through the agency of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to discuss extradition arrangements. After 21 years of mayhem, murder and tragedy in Northern Ireland, a committee is being set up to discuss extradition. I do not believe that we need a committee to discuss this topic. The urgency is so great that people in power in the Republic and in Britain should immediately determine that extradition will no longer be a barrier to bringing murderers before the courts and achieving justice in these islands.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in spite of only two speeches this afternoon, as I forecast at the beginning of this short debate a whole myriad of questions have been raised, which I will do my best to answer. There will inevitably be one or two on which I shall have to write to one noble Lord or the other.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that it would be silly and idle to pretend that everything in the Northern Ireland garden is beautiful. In the words of the noble Lord, malnutrition in the Northern Ireland social, political and economic scene does exist. I was delighted to hear him praise the Belfast action teams. I, too, believe that they are a great force for good,
1242
reconciliation and change in the first city of Northern Ireland.
On 14th June the Government announced that the Belfast action teams' lifespan was being extended beyond the three years originally intended. The action team staff are normally appointed, as the noble Lord is aware, for three years. There have recently been changes in personnel, but there is no evidence that that has led to any adverse impact on the important work being carried out by the teams. While I believe that the success of the initiative is due to the team approach and does not depend on individual personalities, I note the concern of the noble Lord and will watch carefully what happens on that front in the future.
The noble Lord also welcomed the Department of Economic Development's document, Competing in the 1990s: the Key to Growth but gave the impression that it was not enough and that he wanted evidence of commitment. Again, I welcome the noble Lord's support for this strategy document which takes as its central theme the improvement of the competitiveness of the Northern Ireland economy. The document makes clear that the Government's objectives in the key policy areas of industrial development, enterprise and training will be achieved through the more detailed plans of the department's agencies.
The Industrial Development Board is currently finalising its new medium-term strategy and the Training and Employment Agency, the creation of which we debated only recently, will be producing its first corporate plan. Both will take account of the objectives set out in the new strategy. The strategy will also guide the Local Enterprise Development Unit and the Technology Board for Northern Ireland in the revision of their plans. Taken together, these will have a strong practical impact on the Northern Ireland economy.
I remind the noble Lord that the inherent difficulties have lasted for many years and are hardly likely to be solved in a mere 11 years. The whole tenor of my opening speech was that this Government are tackling the economic and social problems slowly and surely; but tackling them they most certainly are.
The noble Lord moved on to the youth service in Northern Ireland. He will recall that the Government carried out a major review of the youth service and published a policy document in September 1987. Since then great progress has been made, culminating in the passing of the Youth Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and the setting up of the Youth Council in February 1990. It is considered that that action will ensure effective co-ordination of this service. I believe that it is too early to say—it is now June and February was not long ago—whether it will need a fillip but, again, I note the noble Lord's interest in this area and I undertake to investigate the matter further; perhaps in a year or so when we will be able to see to what extent it has been doing a good job.
Freedom of choice is of paramount concern to the Government. That freedom includes the right to seek to work and live in any part of the United Kingdom, elsewhere in the European Community,

1243
or further afield. It is no part of Government policy to seek to infringe that right. Equally, it is no part of our policy to seek to encourage migration from Northern Ireland. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the Government continue to seek ways of strengthening Northern Ireland's economy and there are some encouraging signs of success.
The noble Lord also expressed interest in rural development. I am grateful for his expression of thanks in regard to the recent visit he paid to the Province where he had a whirlwind tour of a rural area. No doubt his point emanates to an extent from that. The Government recognise the need for more co-ordinated action towards social and economic development in the most deprived rural areas in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord is therefore absolutely right to be concerned. To that end in January 1990 the Secretary of State set up an Inter-departmental Committee on Rural Development, to which the noble Lord referred. The committee is taking an over-view of government policies in these disadvantaged areas to ensure maximum impact of existing expenditure; sensitivity to the identified needs in separate areas; and improved co-ordination at local level in the application of main line departmental programmes. Opportunities for further action will be reviewed in the light of the committee's findings.
District councils play a vital role in local rural development initiatives. In fact, I would describe them as the first line in those initiatives. The inter-departmental committee has been in close contact with individual councils and with the Society of District Council Chief Executives. The Government recognise that the involvement of councils is very important and they are being encouraged to play their full part in this area. The Government also recognise the need to co-ordinate action by the various interests. That is one of the reasons why the committee was set up. It is also one of the main questions which it is currently addressing.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, for giving me prior warning that he would raise the subject of the Moyle Hospital Action Committee. I am not sure whether he is aware that I have already responded to the report made by that committee. It argues the case for the retention of acute medical services at the hospital in future even after the new Antrim Hospital comes into full operation. I welcome the acceptance that this must lead to some change in the present pattern of services.
The argument is about what changes have to be made. I am able to tell the noble Lord that the Northern Health and Social Services Board has set up a committee to investigate this particularly knotty problem. It is expected to report back to the board in about November. I remind the noble Lord that the northern board's action plan for the current year has made it clear that there will be no changes in services at the Moyle Hospital, at least until the new hospital is operational.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, also mentioned waiting lists. I am not sure whether he was here this morning when my noble friend Lady Blatch talked about
1244
putting into perspective the various problems of the health service. She spoke at some length about balanced thinking on that subject. As regards Northern Ireland, waiting lists and waiting times should be seen in the context of the higher usage of hospital services traditionally made by the population of Northern Ireland. The hospital admission rate is about 20 per cent. higher than in England. The department for which I am responsible has taken a number of steps to tackle the problem including improvements in waiting list information. The situation is not unlike that in England.
The noble Lord will also be aware that this year I made extra money available to regional medical services for reducing the waiting list, particularly in the field of orthopaedic surgery. I watch the signs and signals very carefully to see what I can do to help. I believe that the proper management of waiting lists would have a great effect.
The noble Lord also spoke about education. He made the point that under the new transport arrangements parents have a statutory right to express a choice of secondary school for their children. For their part schools must admit all pupils who apply to them provided—and it is an important proviso—that there is room in the schools. If a school has more applications than places it must select which pupils to admit on the basis of published criteria. That is the position in which we have found ourselves this year. About 1,600 more pupils applied to grammar schools than there were places available. Therefore, it was inevitable that a significant number of pupils who expressed a preference for a grammar school were not admitted. A number of secondary intermediate schools were also over-subscribed and again not all pupils who applied could be admitted.
The noble Lord mentioned appeals, which I agree are most important. If parents feel that their child has not been admitted to a school because the school has not correctly applied its admissions criteria they can appeal to an independent appeal tribunal. Those tribunals are being established by education and library boards, but they are not answerable to those boards. Their decisions are binding. If an appeal is upheld then the pupil must be admitted to the school concerned. As regards the advertising of this appeal procedure, I shall look to see what can be done in Northern Ireland either through the newspapers or by some other means.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, also mentioned the Kilroot 2 power station and the effect it will have on the local environment. He suggested various ways of overcoming the problem, such as the importation of cheaper coal from elsewhere in the world and the possibility of extending the gas pipeline to Northern Ireland. I accept that those are options, but if we powered Kilroot 2 by coal the amount of sulphur dioxide and so on released into the atmosphere would increase.
The noble Lord was right when he said that the Government announced in 1988 that phase 2 would be completed as a dual coal-oil fired station. Preliminary planning and design work has been proceeding. However, recent discussions with the Scottish electricity supply companies have suggested

1245
an option which the noble Lord did not mention. It might be possible to construct an interconnector between Scotland and Northern Ireland to provide power more cheaply than it could be provided by a new power station. It is clearly right to explore that possibility before going ahead with major construction work at Kilroot. The Government and Northern Ireland Electricity are examining the matter urgently and it should be possible to reach a decision within the next few months.
This debate has taken place against a background of a nudging forward of the possibility of political development. Like both noble Lords I believe that it is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland that the political parties should take advantage of the opportunity that may now exist to engage in genuine political dialogue. The Government most certainly want to involve local elected representatives more fully in the business of governing Northern Ireland. For the first time in several years we are in with a chance of pursuing that aim. I shall convey the good wishes of both noble Lords to my right honourable friend, who of course is working conscientiously as he always does to that end.
For what it is worth, my judgment is that Unionists, the SDLP and the other parties now want to make progress. It is in their interests to seek agreement on how political power and authority can be exercised by locally elected representatives and on how wider relationships are managed. Whether history will repeat itself I cannot say, but some noble Lords may know that rather more than 20 years ago my job in Zambia was Zambianised. It would be a nice thought if my job in Northern Ireland could be Ulsterised. I am afraid the reality is that we are some way from that point, although it remains a possibility.
We have had a wide-ranging and interesting debate as is usual when we consider Northern Ireland appropriation orders. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that it is only because of the interregnum in cross-party political organisation in Northern Ireland that we do it at all. I hope that there will come a time in the not too distant future when we shall not be doing it. In the meantime I hope that I have given sufficient explanations to those noble Lords who have asked questions on the order and I trust that the House will be content to approve it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Planning and Building Regulations (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990
4.19 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th May be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this draft order is largely a catching up exercise and introduces powers which have been enacted in Great Britain over the period since Northern Ireland planning and building
1246
regulations legislation was last amended. The Department of the Environment is the planning authority in Northern Ireland; it also has responsibility for making building regulations although enforcement of the regulations falls to district councils. The two aspects of the department's work have been amalgamated in the draft Order in Council both for administrative reasons and because of the non-controversial nature of the provisions.
The planning amendments which largely amend the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 have two aims: first, to make the development control system more effective by introducing or refining procedures which are considered desirable; and, secondly, to reduce and remove some of the restrictions on developers. The main provisions, which are similar to those existing in Great Britain, will enable the department to designate areas as simplified planning zones, serve discontinuance orders on developments which although established are no longer suitable for the environment; enter into planning agreements with developers equivalent to those under Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to regulate the development or use of land; serve repair notices and take emergency action to protect listed buildings; introduce controls over the keeping of hazardous substances and provide for the Crown to obtain planning permission for land of which it proposes to dispose.
A provision completely new to the UK is contained in Article 7, as a response to widespread demand. It requires those who carry out acceptable development without planning permission to submit a subsequent planning application with the appropriate fee, or risk a fine of up to £400 with additional penalties for continuing the offence. The department will consider the application, go through the approprite consultations and impose such conditions as it feels necessary. This will remove the present unacceptable situation whereby payment of planning fees is—if not voluntary—at least avoidable. Quite naturally the law abiding majority resent the ability of a small minority who put up buildings which are acceptable in planning terms to get away without paying the planning fees. The remainder of the planning amendments I would regard as of a minor nature being either procedural, or to allow for consolidation to take place.
I turn now to the provisions relating to building regulations contained in Part III of the proposed draft order. I should remind the House that building control is exercised in Northern Ireland through the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979. The powers contained in that order are broadly equivalent to those which applied in England and Wales up until 1984 when the Housing and Building Control Act was passed. The building control provisions of that Act were subsequently consolidated with other relevant legislation in the Building Act 1984.
The draft order now before the House is designed to take account of certain provisions introduced in England and Wales by the Housing and Building Control Act. This will bring Northern Ireland enabling powers into line in those respects and tidy up some aspects of existing legislation. The drafting

1247
of Part III, which contains only eight articles, follows closely the corresponding provisions of Part I of the Building Act.
The most far-reaching change is the introduction of rights of challenge and appeal against the issue of a contravention notice by a district council. A contravention notice is a notice issued in respect of work which contravenes building regulations and will possibly be more familiar to noble Lords through its English equivalent—that is, a Section 36 notice.
Other important changes are the prohibition of service of a contravention notice in respect of work which has been completed for more than 18 months, the introduction of provisions governing the relaxation of building regulations for existing work and an enabling power to prescribe fees for appeals to the department should that prove necessary.
The remaining articles and related schedules are of minor significance. They provide for modifications and consequential amendments to existing provisions of the 1979 order. Many of the powers proposed in the draft order are enabling powers and provision has been made to introduce them on appointed days. This will require the making of new regulations which will of course be subject to the usual consultation process.
The proposal for this draft order was circulated for comment to a wide variety of interested parties including all district councils and relevant representative bodies. Comments received have been taken into account in drafting the order before the House. I believe that what we are suggesting here is both sensible and necessary. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th May be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the principal contents of this wide-ranging and very detailed order. On my rough count, it repeals over 40 provisions in seven earlier pieces of legislation. In addition, the tortuous Schedule 1 and Schedule 1A contain about 100 amendments to two principal Acts and two orders. I have not been professionally involved in planning law, but I am sure that the practitioners in Northern Ireland would be delighted if the department could now introduce an order to consolidate the legislation in this area. I wonder whether that legislation is likely to be put in hand.
I want to raise a few detailed points on Part II. I apologise to the Minister for not alerting him to those questions, and therefore I shall fully understand if the replies are not readily to hand. That will be my fault. The new procedure for making and altering a development plan and the short procedure for altering a development plan seems to strike the right balance between the need for a simplified and effective procedure on the one hand, and for adequate consultation and representation on the other. Has that balance been achieved? We must bear in mind that the planning authority is at a distance from the elected authorities and that the courts have only a limited power of review of the department's decisions.
1248
The two procedures—they are set out in Article 3—require the department to consult the district council for the area. We welcome that requirement. What will be the position where the development relates to land located within the boundary of council A, but could adversely affect the interests of council B? Is the department, by virtue of the order, under a duty to consult council B, as we submit it should be?
Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could give us an indication of the circumstances in which the department envisages that it will invoke the short procedure, as the order is vague on that point. What are the guidelines for determining whether the issues are of sufficient importance to warrant the full procedure? Will they be set out in the regulations? If the department decides to invoke the short procedure, can that decision be challenged by a district council or by any party who considers that his interests would be adversely affected by the decision? I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply because, as I read the short procedure, it does not require the department to notify the change, or proposed change, to persons who might be affected by it.
I appreciate that the proposed change will be advertised; but the publication of a notice is no guarantee that the proposed change will come to the attention of the party who might be affected by it. Under Article 3, a representation, or objection to the proposed change, may be made within the prescribed period. As we have not seen a draft of the regulations, will the Minister tell us what the envisaged period is and whether, at the request of a party, the period can be extended in prescribed circumstances?
I want to deal with Article 7 which has been referred to by the Minister. It recognises a mischief, but I am not sure whether it addresses the problem effectively. As the Minister explained, there is in Northern Ireland, sadly, a long record of planning law requirements being ignored by far too many developers. I read the report of the debate on the appropriation order in another place, and I was surprised to find that 25 per cent. of planning applications in one district council area related to schemes upon which building operations had already commenced. The question arises whether article 7 resolves the mischief. I cannot answer that question; but I note that the solution relies on giving the department the power to require a developer to apply for planning permission, and if he fails to do so, or to comply with the conditions, then he will be committing an offence. Is the proposed penalty an adequate deterrent? The question that will be asked is whether it should be made an offence, subject to carefully drafted or drawn defences, to embark upon the development without having applied for and obtained the appropriate planning consent.
I wish to ask one short question about article 10. Under this article, the department may enter into an agreement with a developer which imposes an obligation on the developer to undertake or observe certain agreed obligations and that the burden of this covenant will pass to a successor in title of the developer. Will the Minister confirm how exactly this obligation will be binding on the successor in

1249
title, particularly where he is a purchaser for value without notice of the obligation?
I had assumed that the answer might well be that the obligation would be entered in a register of charges. Possibly the Minister will confirm that. Finally, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to a printer's error in the last line on page 15 and again in line 16 on page 16. I must leave it to Members of another place with knowledge and experience of planning law in Northern Ireland to do full justice to the 71-page order. On that basis, from these Benches I approve the order.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who, in spite of what he calls his limited knowledge, has obviously gone through this order with a fine toothcomb. I regret that I am unable to answer all his questions immediately. However, I shall try to answer some of them.
One of his questions was as to whether Article 7 was sufficiently strong to correct the mischief, as he called it, of people getting away without paying planning application fees. Yes, I believe it is. At the moment enforcement notices can only be used where a development is carried out without planning permission and is unacceptable from a planning viewpoint. An offence is only committed if there is no reaction following an enforcement notice. That last part is the change in this order; therefore the offence will be committed if the enforcement notice is ignored.
That is the situation in the whole of the United Kingdom and the Planning Appeals Commission has specifically stated that it will not accept an enforcement notice where there are no planning grounds. The submission notice powers will give us the right to request the planning application, with its attendant fee, or to take a developer to court should an application not be made.
As the noble Lord knows from his practice as a successful country solicitor, we regularly review the scale of fines, not only in Great Britain but also in Northern Ireland. It is only after a period of operation of such changes that we shall know whether the £400 fine plus the daily addition is appropriate. We shall keep it under review.
It also right that the department should have powers to make planning agreements where that is felt necessary. The power under Article 10 will only be used reasonably where additional infrastructure is required because of the proposed development and where the provision of infrastructure is not within the planning programme of the appropriate authority. The case which the noble Lord may have been thinking of where the land, the half-built property or half-built estate was sold on to another person would happen very rarely. However, I shall investigate the point and write to the noble Lord.
He said that everybody was waiting for consolidation of planning legislation. He is absolutely spot on there; everybody is and has been for a considerable time. We decided that it would be appropriate to wait until after we had received the approval of Parliament for the order. The consolidation measure will be enacted as soon as
1250
possible, following the passage of the order. I am happy to be able to tell the noble Lord that the drafting is already in hand.
The noble Lord also asked about alterations to a development plan. The answer appears to be that that occurs only in the case of relatively minor changes in the area plan. One cannot identify whether changes are minor or major until one studies the individual area plans. Circumstances will therefore dictate what happens in any particular case.
I understand that it is unusual for development plans to be notified to particular individuals when they are being drawn up. That is also the position, I believe in England and Wales. I am drawing on memory from the time when I had some responsibility in this area and piloted various planning Bills and planning orders through your Lordships' House. I seem to have awoken a chord of response in the noble Lord. Perhaps he wishes to intervene.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I was drawing a distinction between the making of a plan and the alteration of a plan. I had understood that in the making of a plan a party who would be affected would be notified. However, when a plan is altered, such a party is not notified. One merely serves notice of the proposed change. I thought that there was that distinction.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I understand that the situation is not as the noble Lord describes. Advertising is carried on both in the making of the plan and in the redrawing of it. However, perhaps I should look at the matter. I note the noble Lord's interest.
As the noble Lord has said, this is a major piece of legislation. It runs to some 70 pages. I am slightly surprised that the noble Lord managed to spot two printing errors. I understand that printing errors in legislation can be corrected without further recourse to either House of Parliament. I undertake to ensure that this will be done.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Horse Racing (Northern Ireland) Order 1990
4.37 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order seeks to provide financial assistance to Downpatrick racecourse by extending the scope of the Horse Racing Fund, established under the Horse Racing and Betting (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.
There are only two horse racecourses in Northern Ireland. Both are situated in County Down—one near Lisburn called Down Royal or more commonly "the Maze", and the other at Downpatrick. Prior to 1976 both racecourses received a small amount of government assistance. In the early 1970s the Jockey Club carried out a survey of racing in Northern Ireland and, in the light of its advice, it was decided

1251
to concentrate financial assistance for racing on Down Royal racecourse as it was considered to have the most potential for development. Financial support to Downpatrick was gradually withdrawn and the organ chosen to grant aid Down Royal was the Horse Racing and Betting (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. The fund is administered by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland and is financed by annual contributions from bookmakers in Northern Ireland. It has provided financial assistance towards prize money for races and the costs of technical and personnel services required on race days as well as assistance towards the cost of improvements to the race track and facilities for participants and spectators.
Downpatrick Race Club however did not take this reversal in its fortunes lying down. Not only has it managed to continue operating the racecourse reasonably effectively and to remain financially viable, it has even managed to increase the number of race meetings held at the course in recent years.
That positive performance and contribution by Downpatrick racecourse has prompted a reconsideration of the decision to exclude it from financial assistance. The Government now consider that Downpatrick racecourse is an important element in the Northern Ireland horse-racing scene and that it is worthy of financial assistance from the Horse Racing Fund on a similar basis to Down Royal. This order therefore proposes to extend the scope of the Horse Racing Fund to include Downpatrick racecourse as well as Down Royal. Licensed bookmakers in Northern Ireland who finance the fund through annual contributions have been consulted and support the move to extend financial assistance to Downpatrick.
The Horse Racing and Betting (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 will therefore be repealed. The Horse Racing Fund will continue to be financed by annual contributions from bookmakers in Northern Ireland and administered by the Department of Agriculture. Financial assistance will be available towards prize money for races, the costs of technical and personnel services required on race days and works or facilities which may from time to time need to be carried out specifically to ensure that race meetings may take place in safe and secure conditions.
In short, this is an order which has universal approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th June be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I can be brief on this matter. We unquestionably back this order.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I have already complemented my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies on the interest which he takes in Northern Ireland. That was reflected in the debate which took place on the planning order, which he had obviously studied in such detail that he was able to discern two typing errors. I was not able to take part in that debate because I am not aware of all the circumstances which now exist in relation to planning regulations.
1252
However, I believe that I can make a short contribution to this debate on horse racing and I should be able to speak with somewhat more authority in this than in other debates. It is with bated breath and a great degree of anxiety that I await the results this afternoon to see whether I have made yet another contribution to the bookmakers' funds in England and in Northern Ireland.
I remember when this legislation first went through Stormont and Downpatrick put up a fight to ensure its existence. As the Minister said, it did not take the reversal in its fortunes lying down. Many people make substantial contributions to the bookmakers' benevolent society, as I do six days a week, and if there is racing in France, seven days a week. When the legislation first went through it was universally welcomed in Northern Ireland. At that time there was religious opposition to horse racing in any form, whether at the Maze or Downpatrick. That legislation contributed to the continuation of Downpatrick as a race course. That has been to the benefit of everyone who is interested, as I am, in that activity. It has not in any way led to a falling-off in religious beliefs as we were told at the time might occur by those who believed that horse racing should be abolished for religious reasons.
No one could disagree with this order. As I said, I have placed bets in Northern Ireland, and I hope that I have not made yet another contribution to the bookmaker's taxi fare home and another box of cigars.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. It is always rather dicey for a Minister introducing an order to say, as I did, that the order has universal approval. The Minister may then find that the wrath of the House comes down on his or her head. This is not such an occasion and I commend the order, universally, to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1990
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the draft Order in Council before your Lordships' House implements revised proposals by the Boundary Commission for England to create from the existing Milton Keynes constituency, together with a small part of the Buckingham constituency, two new constituencies, to be known as Milton Keynes South-West and North-East Milton Keynes respectively.
The commission announced its intention to review constituencies in this area on 13th December 1988 and published proposals on 19th January 1989. Those proposals were to divide Milton Keynes along a north to south axis and to call the new constituencies Milton Keynes, East and Milton

1253
Keynes, West. However, those proposals led to a substantial number of representations and the commission was obliged to hold a local inquiry, as is required by Section 6(2) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. It is that local inquiry, conducted by an assistant commissioner, which produced the revised proposals now before your Lordships' House.
The order implementing the proposals has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It will take effect at the next general election.
No one involved at any stage of the review ever doubted that Milton Keynes needed to be divided in some way so as to produce constituencies having reasonably sized electorates comparable with those elsewhere in England. The only real question was how the division should be made. The revised proposals contained in the draft order recommend a division of the borough of Milton Keynes along an east-west axis. That better reflects local ties and has won substantial local acceptance. Of the mere handful of representations received, only one made any objection to that arrangement.
I therefore invite your Lordships to approve the draft order implementing the commission's proposals. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on these Benches certainly support the order. My information is that not only from a community point of view, but, more importantly, from a broadly political point of view there has been agreement and understanding that the manner in which the proposals have been made is in the best interests of the broader community. We therefore have no objection to the order
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, two constituencies are clearly too large. There will now be three. That seems wholly sensible.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for the welcome that they have given to the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police (Dispensation from Requirement to Investigate Complaints) Regulations 1990
4.47 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these regulations were considered in Committee in another place on Wednesday, 13th June 1990. They have also been seen by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The changes covered by the regulations were first proposed by the Police Complaints Authority in its
1254
triennial review for the years 1985–88. I am sure that I need not remind your Lordships that the PCA's functions, given to it under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, make it in effect a watchdog body, making sure that the investigation of any complaint by a member of the public against a police officer is properly conducted. Among the PCA's duties is a requirement to review the workings of Part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act once every three years, and that review was the source of the recommendations which are embodied in the regulations.
Before coming to a decision on the PCA's proposals, the Government consulted widely among those bodies with a responsibility for policing and finally announced their acceptance of these proposals in a parliamentary Written Answer made by my right honourable friend in another place on Tuesday, 22nd June 1989. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act provides that, when a complaint is made against a police officer, it must be recorded and subsequently either informally resolved or formally investigated. A chief officer cannot choose simply not to investigate a complaint. Should he for any reason wish to do so, he must seek a dispensation from the requirement to investigate from the Police Complaints Authority, and it will at all times have in mind the interest of the general public.
The regulations that we are now amending—the Police (Anonymous, Repetitious Etc. Complaints) Regulations 1985—specify in some detail the circumstances in which the PCA can give a dispensation. Time has shown that there are some gaps in the powers provided, and it is to these that the PCA's recommendations and the present regulations are directed.
First, while the principal regulations provided that the police could seek a dispensation where an identical complaint had already been investigated, they made no provision for the situation where an identical complaint had already been informally resolved. These regulations would remedy that deficiency.
In the second place, the new regulations make provision for a dispensation if a complaint is vexatious, oppressive or an abuse of the system. I would not wish to define too closely what kind of abuses this measure might be used to curb, but I can offer your Lordships' House a few examples of the kind of difficulties which have been experienced in the past. For instance, two complainants are known to have mounted campaigns against their respective police forces resulting in the one case in over 90 complaints within one year and in the other in over 70. It is not going too far to say that this is an abuse of the complaints system. In other cases members of the public have been known to mount unwarranted vendettas against particular police officers by making large numbers of complaints against them. Some provision needs to be made to avoid the appalling waste of time and money which would result from those pointless investigations.
The third situation in which the PCA will be able to give a dispensation is where more than 12 months has passed since the incident in question, and the complainant has no good reason for not having

1255
lodged his complaint earlier. The reason for this is surely clear. A complainant who has a genuine matter for complaint will normally wish to make his complaint as soon as possible. A lapse of time will only make his memory, and that of everybody else, less clear and the value of the complaint less as each day passes. As a result any delay in making the complaint makes the possibility of a successful investigation increasingly remote. Moreover, even if the investigation does show the police officer to be at fault, any action in the courts which might derive from that investigation might well be time-barred.
Nothing in these regulations will enable chief officers to refuse to investigate complaints without good cause. They can only omit to investigate after receiving a dispensation from the Police Complaints Authority, and any such application for a dispensation will have to be fully justified.
The regulations will oil the wheels of the system without materially withdrawing the public's protection. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on this side of the House certainly have no objection to the order. We welcome it and understand the reasons for it. The Minister took a quick canter over the course and told us why this order is necessary now.
He will have read, as I have, what happened in Committee in another place when questions were raised about why the matter had not been brought forward earlier and why it had not been included in the original setting up of the PCA. The explanation given by the Minister's ministerial colleague certainly satisfied me. He said that it arose out of experience. The triennial review indicated that such situations were occurring and therefore the Government moved as fast as they could.
However, it should be understood that the public are very sensitive about complaints against the police. Sadly, there is perhaps more publicity given to them and there are more instances of complaints now. The public view very seriously complaints made against the police, even more so perhaps than complaints against any other section of the community. I stand second to none in my admiration for the police force. Nevertheless, when complaints are made the problem is how to distinguish between the genuine, vexatious and oppressive and those abusing the system. All complaints must be taken seriously and I am satisfied that they are.
The Minister and the Government have made it clear that this is not an opportunity for the police not to do that which the public expect. The police do not take the decision to grant dispensation from reviewing complaints; it is the decision of the Police Complaints Board. I was pleased that the Minister confirmed that the regulations will not enable police officers to refuse to investigate complaints without good cause. That good cause must be laid before the Police Complaints Board in order that it can grant dispensation.
1256
The Minister did not say how wide the consultations were. He merely said that consultations had been undertaken widely. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, knows a great deal about the subject as a result of his background and current associations with the police and I am sure that he will help the House.
The police and the Police Complaints Board welcome the regulations. It would be helpful to the House if the Minister could say who, in addition to the police and the board, was consulted so that we may know whose views were canvassed. We on these Benches warmly welcome the regulations.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Viscount put forward a powerful case for the regulations. They will relieve the police of the necessity to investigate vexatious or repetitious complaints. They will deal with tiresome people who pursue vendettas against a particular force or officer. Unhappily, a number of people spend a considerable part of their lives doing so. It is right that we should not passively accept the substantial expenditure of public money when complaints are investigated.
The House should recognise that the burden on the police in investigating complaints is considerable. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that it is right that that burden should be accepted. However, it is also right that we should lessen it whenever possible. The regulations will enable the police to concentrate their resources on dealing with complaints which appear to be serious. In my view that is right and we on these Benches welcome the regulations.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the welcome that they have given to the regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, they are the result of a triennial review. I emphasise that at no time can any complaint be made without being recorded and subsequently informally resolved or formally investigated. There is no change in that requirement; it is merely that the loopholes that I stressed are being tightened up.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked what consultation had taken place. The first triennnial review, published on 12th May 1988, pointed to a number of improvements. The Home Office issued a consultation paper in November 1988 discussing the PCA's proposals and inviting comments. Perhaps I may give the noble Lord a list to indicate the number of people who were consulted. They were, among others, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of County Councils, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Federation, and the Superintendents' Association. None of the consultees saw disadvantages in what the PCA had proposed. The regulations now before the House substantially embody the PCA's proposals. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord that consultation was wide and that the right people were consulted.

1257
I also welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, agrees that these minor tidying up regulations are required and recognises with the Government the waste of money in the needless investigation of these repetitious or vexatious complaints. Having said that, I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments, and with a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the amendments be printed.
House adjourned at one minute past five o'clock.