Lords Sitting of 29 November 1990

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Lord Belstead: Tributes
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before we proceed to the day's business, I hope that I may on behalf of my noble friends and noble Lords in all parts of the House pay a warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the way he has conducted the affairs of this House as its Leader over the past three years. The noble Lord brought great experience to that Office because he had served in a number of departments. That became clear during his tenure, especially when he took part in our debates. In my view he has proved himself a splendid parliamentarian, with the ability to open and wind up debates on a variety of subjects and to think on his feet. However, his greatest gift was his readiness to see every point of view and to help us all to the greatest extent. I believe he is the only Leader in the history of the House who was kind enough to smile even when he lost a Division. I greatly hope that Mr. David Waddington will follow his example. We wish the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, every success in his new Office. We also wish Mr. David Waddington every success when he takes up his new Office in this House.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has done as Leader of the House. It must have been extraordinarily difficult to take over from the noble Viscount, Lord Whitehead, the previous Leader of the House. I apologise to the House. I meant to say the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. However, the noble Lord certainly followed the example of the noble Viscount in one most important respect—we all greatly welcomed that— in that he has been not only the Leader of the Conservative Party in this House but also and pre-eminently the Leader of your Lordships' House. That is a tradition which noble Lords in all parts of the House are grateful for. We welcomed it and we are confident that it will be continued.
Apart from that continuation of the tradition of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has wisely handled the House in his own unique way. We on these Benches, trained by my noble friend Lord Grimond, have always considered that the primary duty of Opposition is to make life as disagreeable as possible for those on the Government Benches and for the Leader on the Government Benches. However, it has been extremely difficult to be disagreeable with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. His particular quality was that he was a great practitioner of the doctrine that the soft answer turneth away wrath. To try to pick a quarrel with the noble Lord has been quite extraordinarily difficult. He had such a
1060
great appreciation of the point of view put forward from other sections of the House that one had to agree with him more often than one wished.
We are glad and we congratulate the noble Lord on the fact that he continues to be a Minister of State. His peculiar qualities of friendliness and peacemaking may not perhaps be in immediate demand now that the Conservative Party is demonstrating brotherly love—I underline the word "brotherly"—on all sides. However, there can be no doubt that sooner or later the noble Lord's peculiar talent for peacemaking will be required again.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, noble Lords on the Cross-Benches warmly support all the tributes that have been paid to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. We admired tremendously his constant attendance in the House, his patience and his kind way of reminding noble Lords if they were breaking the rules or customs of the House. We are grateful to him for understanding and protecting the rights of noble Lords on the Cross-Benches. The noble Lord was never too busy to listen to our problems or to give advice. We thank him for all that he has done for all of us in the House. We shall all miss the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, very much.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I wish to add from these Benches a further tribute to those which have already been paid to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. Other noble Lords have already paid homage to his skill as a parliamentarian. I wish to underline that skill and also to mention my own sense of great gratitude for the noble Lord's unfailing courtesy to every Member of the House. He was certainly courteous to me and to others on these Benches. We have been profoundly grateful for the way he has always taken the care and the trouble to talk to each one of us and to help us. We wish him well in his new Office.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to thank those noble Lords who have been kind enough to make such generous remarks about my noble friend Lord Belstead. I remember the occasion of his maiden speech back in 1964 on the subject of education. He has held office in the Department of Education and Science, the Northern Ireland Office, the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Department of the Environment, as Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, as Leader of the House of Lords and as Lord Privy Seal. That is a remarkable achievement. I am most grateful for the remarks that noble Lords have so generously made.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, might have put it, my noble friend Lord Belslaw followed my noble friend Lord Whitehead. Those were difficult footsteps to follow but he did so with remarkable success. As the right reverend Prelate said, my noble friend always treated the House with courtesy, charm and good humour. When events such as those we have witnessed over the past few days occur it takes me back to my childhood when one used to play a game called pass the parcel. The great thing was to make sure that when the music stopped one did not hold the parcel. In

1061
politics the reverse seems to be the case. When the music stops one has to hold the parcel, or at least a parcel.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Belstead, who has held such distinguished office, will still be a member of the Government. As noble Lords have so rightly said, he has tried to do his best for all parties in the House. The House only runs on co-operation by all parties. I should like to thank noble Lords not only on this side of the House but also on the other side for the help they gave my noble friend when he was Leader of the House.

Cammell Laird Shipbuilders
3.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chester The Lord Bishop of Chester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will support an application on behalf of Cammell Laird Shipbuilders to change its status to a merchant shipbuilder and to allow it to receive intervention funding.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the 1985 agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the European Commission on the restructuring of British Shipbuilders and the proposed privatisation of the warship yards such as Cammell Laird does not preclude those yards from engaging in merchant shipbuilding on an unsubsidised basis.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware of the enormous expectancy among the workforce at Cammell Laird and that Cammell Laird is very much the lifeblood of Birkenhead? Is he also aware of the back-to-work campaign in 1984, which at the time the Prime Minister called courageous, and the democratic co-operation of the workforce in Cammell Laird, the remarkable unanimity among the unions and the very high quality of work? The workforce expects some government intervention at this point to rescue the yard. Is it possible that the Government, having given the Answer about the EC ruling, are prepared themselves to intervene in this situation? I understand that the French company CMN of Cherbourg has received help from the French Government. Is the Minister aware that Cammell Laird seeks to build high speed catamarans for the cross-Channel service in direct competition with CMN of Cherbourg and that without government help the yard will not win the contract?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the agreement that the British Government reached in 1985 with regard to British Shipbuilders fell under the terms of the fifth directive on shipbuilding. On 1st January 1991 the seventh directive on shipbuilding comes into effect. The purpose of the directives is to reduce excessive merchant shipbuilding capacity in Europe. If the Government were to intervene that would be in direct
1062
contravention of the agreement that we reached with Commissioner Sutherland regarding the fifth directive.
I should remind your Lordships' House that the reduction in employment in the merchant sector of the shipbuilding industry in Europe has not been confined to this country. In France it has fallen by 79 per cent., in the Netherlands by 83 per cent. and in the United Kingdom by 86 per cent. In Sweden employment has fallen by 98 per cent.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, do the Government recognise the gravity of the problem? Two thousand jobs will be lost directly if Cammell Laird closes down and a further 2,000 jobs will be lost among contractors. That spells economic disaster for Birkenhead and the Wirral. Can the Government think of a way to go back to the Community and renegotiate the deal they made over privatisation? After all, we put enough money into the Community. Could we not get some of our money back?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, on a day when I read in the Financial Times of the Labour Party's uncontrolled endorsement of economic monetary union I find it surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asks us to fly in the face of the fifth shipbuilding directive, which was in force at the time the agreement was reached, and the seventh directive which will come into effect on 1st January.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the shipyard is in an area which has one of the highest unemployment rates in the United Kingdom and where there is very little prospect of anything to take its place? Will he give serious consideration to taking the matter to the new Prime Minister with the request that was put so well by the right reverend Prelate in his Question?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate specifically referred to an application to the Commission. I must point out to the noble Lord that there are many other examples throughout Europe. That is why I quoted the percentages involved in the reduction in numbers employed in merchant shipbuilding and why we cannot go for a reapplication.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why the French have found a way to subsidise a rival firm but we in this country do not seem to be able to find a way round the regulations? Perhaps a copy of their regulations as they apply can be put in the Library. For the convenience of some noble Lords they may be translated into English. Does he believe that we can contrive to do exactly the same as the French have done in so many other ways to preserve what they believe to be in the best interests of their country?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the fact of the matter is that under the 1985 agreement with the Commission Cammell Laird was a warship yard. The CMN yard referred to is a commercial and warship yard.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm or deny the allegation that the French are subsidising that company and that it is in

1063
competition with our yard? If he becomes aware that the French are effecting that kind of subsidy, will he completely reopen the whole question? Does he agree that it is very well known that in many cases the French obey only those Community regulations with which it suits them to comply?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we keep a close watching brief on our position and responsibilities in Europe in regard to both our own activities and those of others. It is important to understand that conditions of parallel existence do not pertain in these two cases. Cammell Laird came out as a warship yard under our arrangements with the Commission, and arrangements differ from country to country on the basis of what they consider to be their priorities. The CMN yard is a warship and commercial yard; at that time Cammell Laird was not a commercial yard.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Cammell Laird's problems arise simply because we are now building extremely few warships? Is he aware, for instance, that in a few years' time we shall have only four diesel-electric submarines? Can he tell the House of any period in British history since the reign of Henry VIII when the Royal Navy has been smaller?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not have numbers for the Royal Navy fleet in my hand or at my disposal. It may be worth pointing out to your Lordships' House that under the Commission's directive intervention is allowed in order to preserve warship capacity if it is seen to be necessary for the defence of the realm.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, with regard to the question put by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, can my noble friend the Minister tell us whether we are playing by the same set of rules as the French?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that we are. I produced the figure for the reduction of employment in merchant shipbuilding of some 79 per cent. in France to show that other countries also have had to take their share of the strain.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is one of the many reasons why the British people are disenchanted with going into Europe?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in the light of my earlier remarks with regard to the Labour Party's commitment to EMU today, I am slightly surprised by the noble Baroness's question.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, if we are playing by the same set of rules, can my noble friend tell me whether we are both obeying them?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I feel that I can go no further than I have already gone this afternoon when I said that I believe that we are.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister say—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not like to interrupt the noble Lord but we have been eight minutes on the first Question. After he has put his question, perhaps we might move on.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister say whether he is simply going to accept the massive rise in unemployment in Birkenhead or whether the Government have any plans to alleviate it?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government have many plans which revolve around all kinds of schemes such as for inner cities, deprivation and so on. However, the Question on the Order Paper refers specifically to an application to the Commission which would drive a coach and horses through a great European principle.

Disabled People and the Community Charge
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to assist disabled people who are disadvantaged by the community charge.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, severely mentally impaired people are exempt from the community charge, as are those with mental or physical disabilities who are resident in hospital as patients or resident in care homes, nursing homes and other hostels. For those disabled people living in the community there is additional help given over and above that given to people without disability through both the community charge benefit and transitional relief.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. But it is not the case that disabled people are hurt twice over by the poll tax? With low incomes and high outgoings they are hurt as are other poor people, but also under the poll tax disabled people have lost the rate relief on adapted buildings which 70 per cent. of them previously enjoyed. In other words, does she agree that disabled people are being penalised both for their poverty and their disability?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I seriously take issue with the noble Baroness on her second point. Rates paid on buildings no longer exist. That situation was abolished with the new system. As the new system operates, abatement is considered. It is even more generous than rate relief and the disabilities of individuals are taken into account as well.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, has the noble Baroness any words of comfort for those who look after disabled people, in particular those who live and work in residential institutions for the disabled? Is she aware that the charities which run such organisations, such as the Calvert Trust and the Richmond Fellowship, find the community charge in respect of those employees a very heavy burden? Is it not consuming charitable donations which the donors intended to help the disabled and not merely to boost public funds?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper refers specifically to disabled people. One in four people are helped to pay their community charge bills. A sum of £2 billion is made available and 9 million people receive some help.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Question raised by my noble friend is an especially poignant one? The poll tax affects many poor people and it hits disabled poor people more than anyone else. If the noble Baroness wants corroboration of that statement, will she be prepared to consider talking to the Disabled Drivers Association, Arthritis Care and the societies for helping the aged? Those associations could give all the facts. She is obviously unaware of them, otherwise she would not have given such suave answers this afternoon. Will she contact the representatives of the disabled people of this country?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that nothing I have said seems to detract from the way in which I believe that we should care about the needs of disabled people. My first Answer listed the kind of help that is considered. Community charge benefits take account of the needs of disabled people. I said that there is complete exemption for people with severe mental impairment. There is also exemption for those with mental or physical disabilities who are resident in hospital, care homes, nursing homes and other hostels. For those disabled people in the community there is also additional help over and above that given to other people. I hope that I was not suave or uncompassionate in my answers on this issue.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the present Prime Minister is the first person to hold that office who has also held the office of Minister for the Disabled (as it was then) or Minister for Disabled People, as it is now? Organisations for the disabled therefore greatly hope that the Government will be more sympathetic than they have perhaps been in the past about representations from them, especially in regard to the poll tax. Will she kindly say whether representations in regard to the poll tax should be made to the Secretary of State for the Environment or to the Minister for Disabled People?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's first remark. My right honourable friend the new Prime Minister served with distinction in the Department of Health and Social Security (as it then was). He had a very good and special relationship with disabled people and their organisations. The noble Lord will be aware that there has been a review undertaken during the past year. The review will continue, as has been very publicly promised. I believe that if disabled people wish to be considered further over and above the generous arrangements that have been made for them, they could make representations to both the Department of the Environment and their own organisations.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House what steps the Department of Social Security is taking to monitor the effects of the
1066
community charge on disabled people, in particular those who come from hospital into the community for the first time?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Department of Social Security has some very sophisticated methods of monitoring the requirements of people with many kinds of special needs, not just the disabled. I have no reason to believe that those needs are not watched with great care. Continuous monitoring also gives rise from time to time to new policies.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, if the noble Baroness meets the disablement organisations she will learn that some people on mobility allowance cannot afford a car any more because of the poll tax. There is one other disadvantage which she has not yet mentioned. Disabled people who live in high poll tax areas in specially adapted units of accommodation do not have the same mobility as others in the community. They cannot move to a cheaper area because they will not obtain similarly adapted accommodation. They are therefore trapped in high poll tax areas. What is being done about them?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have detailed the number of ways in which disabled people are helped. However, the noble Lord makes specific reference to areas where the poll tax is very high. I believe that it is more a reflection on the level of the charge in those areas than it is on the level of the way in which we help disabled people.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does the Minister not recall that when the poll tax legislation was going through Parliament the Government undertook that social security benefits would be uprated to cover the 20 per cent. of poll tax which disabled and other people on benefits have to pay? Is it not now the case that a single person has to pay £36 extra a year and a couple £76 extra a year, amounts not covered by uprating in social security benefits? Does that not apply with even greater force to those who are disabled?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding is that if people qualify to have the 20 per cent. paid into their social security payments, whatever they are, that 20 per cent. is 20 per cent. of the average community charge in the country as a whole. Where community charges are above the average, that reflects more on the local authority than on the system.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister not feel uncomfortable that a family which paid £12 a year in rates because of disability rate relief is now paying £380 a year in poll tax, and, according to RADAR, as a result cannot afford the electric wheelchair that it needs? Is the Minister comfortable about that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amount referred to by the noble Baroness means that the family does not fall into the category of receiving some of the benefits available. If the noble Baroness says that an individual with disability is paying £380 she introduces a very different factor. If there is one disabled person he will receive all the benefits. If there are other people in the house, and if they are below the threshold for rebate,

1067
they will receive rebate. If they are above the threshold, they are deemed to be able to meet the charges.

Hong Kong: Death Penalty
3.34 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take the necessary steps to abolish the death penalty for serious offences in Hong Kong, and if not why not.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, no. There are no plans to change the present situation.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since 1966 there has not been one single execution in Hong Kong and that 125 reprieved murderers are now serving life imprisonment with a further 40 awaiting commutation? At the same time, on the mainland of China hundreds of people a year are executed not only for murder but also for political and economic crimes. Would it not therefore be much more satisfactory to abolish the penalty in Hong Kong?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that there have been no executions in the territory for 24 years. However, as I am sure he is aware, there is a very high degree of autonomy not only for the present government but for the future government of Hong Kong under the Joint Declaration. We believe that it is most important that such an issue should be resolved within the territory rather than that resolution be imposed from outside.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that the Legislative Council of Hong Kong has the power to abolish the death penalty in Hong Kong by way of Order in Council? Would Her Majesty's Government not advise the Legislative Council that they would support such action?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there does not seem to be a majority in favour of such action in LegCo at the moment. The present situation has worked satisfactorily. However, in view of the unique position of Hong Kong we believe that those matters are best resolved within Hong Kong.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Earl says that there does not seem to be a majority. On what grounds does he say that? Is it quite clear to the Government that there is no majority? My understanding is that a large number of people would be very glad to see the death penalty abolished in Hong Kong.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a recent opinion poll published on 13th November showed that 71 per cent. of people in Hong Kong were in favour of retaining the death penalty for convicted murderers. That is slightly higher than the last survey in 1986. So far as concerns LegCo, in a recent poll only 17 members out of a total of 58 said that they favoured abolition.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, as the noble Earl said, is this not essentially a Hong Kong matter?
1068
Abolition is a matter for the Legislative Council. It can be achieved at any time there is a majority for it. Surely we should leave that issue to the Legislative Council. The present policy of the Secretary of State which results in automatic commutation has continued for 16 years or more. If there is a strong feeling among a majority of the executive and legislative councillors that it should be changed, presumably they would say so. Meanwhile, should we not leave the matter to them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with his vast knowledge of Hong Kong the noble Lord says some very wise words.
Lord Renton: My Lords, who exercises the prerogative of mercy at present? Who would exercise it or advise upon it under the proposed new constitution?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before answering that question perhaps I may say that I know that my noble friend will take enormous pride in having represented Huntingdon from 1945 to 1979 and that the judicious timing with which he saw fit to resign his seat has been to the enormous benefit of this party and the country.
To answer my noble friend, the present situation has obtained for 24 years and the matter is in the hands of the Governor.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if there is, as the noble Earl said, a strong feeling in favour of the death penalty in Hong Kong, why has there been no protest against commutation over the past 16 years?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am afraid that I am unable to answer that question.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Earl made reference to Huntingdon and elections. He may be aware that the noble Lord sitting beside me twice defeated the present Prime Minister in parliamentary elections.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the Hong Kong Bill of Rights of this year is defective in Article 2, which states that the death penalty may be imposed for the most serious crimes and that commutation may be granted in all cases? Is it not far too permissive?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is entirely a matter for Hong Kong.

Foreign Goods Vehicles
3.40 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many foreign goods vehicles whose weight or dimensions exceeded those permitted by British law sought to enter the United Kingdom in the last 12 months; and how many of these were permitted to enter.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, approximately 390,000 foreign goods vehicles entered the country in 1989 and 15,124 foreign vehicles were weighed in

1069
1988/89 by the department's traffic examiners. Of those, 9,565 were weighed in ports and 2,624 were prohibited from further movement until the excess load had been removed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend stay whether it is intended to enforce British law in this respect? In view of the Answer to the first Question this afternoon, that might be an appropriate response.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is certainly intended to enforce British law in this respect. During my researches I noticed that my noble friend asked a similar Question almost two years ago. I then said that we had weighed 5,700 foreign registered vehicles in the previous year and that we proposed to weigh 8,800 during that year. I hope that the House will be pleased that we have reached the figure of 15,100 vehicles this year and are looking for a further increase next year.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the Minister say how many examiners there are at present and whether the Government plan to increase that number? I ask the question in view of the wide variety of obligations that examiners must fulfil not only in relation to the weights and dimensions of lorries but also in relation to condition and driving hours.
Lord Barbazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have a figure for the present number of traffic examiners. I am well aware that they have duties other than the weighing of lorries which, as the noble Lord described, they must continue to carry out. However, we propose to increase the number of weighings next year.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is all very well to increase the number of weighings but what happens if they are found wanting?
Lord Barabazen of Tara: My Lords, one stops the lorries from proceeding and makes the drivers unload their excess load.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, how are we progressing with improvements to our bridges so that they can take the vehicles which may be allowed by our foreign friends in Europe?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have a derogation from the 40 tonne directive until 1st January, 1999. We are continuing to survey and strengthen our bridges where necessary.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend clarify his answer about action taken in cases where the load is excessive? He indicated that the driver would be made to unload but, if the vehicle is too large and its dimensions are excessive will it be denied entry?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in such a case, yes. However, there are few cases of excess dimensions so that seldom happens. The common problem is overloading.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the grave anxieties that have been expressed in the media by representative bodies engaged in the road haulage business to the effect that there are too
1070
many cowboys and that there is an insufficient number of testing examiners to carry out the increasing obligations that are being imposed?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, when I last answered the Question asked by my noble friend two years ago I said that 24 per cent. of lorries had been found to be overloaded. The survey now shows that only 17 per cent. are overloaded and therefore there has been an improvement during the past few years.

Statutory Sick Pay Bill
3.44 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

London Local Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Midland Metro (Penalty Fares) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee
3.45 p.m.
The chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the order paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

Ampthill, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Belstead, L (L. Privy Seal)

Carter, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Denham, L.

Elton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Goff of Chieveley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Hayter, L.

Hesketh, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. (L. Chancellor)

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Nathan, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Scrota, B.

Shackleton, L.

1071

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Wigoder, L.

—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is it correct that the Lord Privy Seal will remain on the committee?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that is not strictly so and the noble Baroness is correct. However, in the circumstances I considered that it was better to move the Motion as agreed by the Committee of Selection and return to the House at a later date with an amendment rather than postponing the Motion. A number of committees must be appointed and it would be more convenient to pass the Motion in its present form.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Privileges: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 73 the Committee for Privileges be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal, be named of the Committee:

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Belstead, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Denham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Glenamara, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Stedman, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wigoder, L.

—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wish to raise a point about privileges. It is no privilege to sit on this particular bench because there is a roaring cold draught—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in spite of the fact that many complaints have been made, nothing has been done. In order that we may become a little more privileged will the Chairman of Committees make representations to the authorities to ensure that the problem is dealt with and that we may have a little warmth?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the question is a little wide of the Motion, and I know that the situation is a good deal worse for those who wear skirts, but I shall look into the matter.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: How do you know?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Maintenance Enforcement Bill [H.L.]
3.47 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Government wish to reinforce parental responsibility and to help lone parents. On 30th October we published a White Paper entitled Children Come First. It explained the Government's proposals for the creation of a child support agency which will assess, collect and enforce child maintenance. The proposals in the White Paper are both radical and innovative. Under them child maintenance will be assessed by a new child support agency on the basis of a formula. The agency will arrange for the collection and the enforcement of child maintenance for lone parents who are on income support and for any other parent who wishes to use the agency's services. The collection and the enforcement services may also extend to the maintenance of a spouse.
However, the child support agency, if it has Parliament's approval, will not be fully operational until the mid-1990s and we cannot ignore until then the problems which lone parents face in collecting and enforcing maintenance for themselves and for their children. That is why we have introduced this Bill today. In the magistrates' courts alone there are about 85,000 enforcement proceedings a year.
Many enforcement proceedings are avoidable, and many of them involve women who are in great distress, both financial and emotional. They often write to the Government pointing out loopholes in the present arrangements for enforcing their maintenance. Perhaps I could give your Lordships an example of what I mean. We have recently had drawn to our attention the case of a woman who obtained an order for maintenance from her ex-husband in May 1989. The order was registered for enforcement in the magistrates' court. Since then, her ex-husband has paid only irregularly, and he has delayed paying arrears for as long as possible.
When default occurs under the present law, the justices' clerk, at the request of the creditor, informs the debtor of the sum of the arrears, requests him to make the payment and, if payment is not made, he issues an enforcement summons. In this case, the man concerned pays off the stated sum of arrears only when he receives a summons. But, by this time, fresh arrears have accumulated, and the process has to be repeated. His maintenance account is therefore always in arrears. The man has simply "played the system". Since May 1989 the justices' clerk has been obliged to send the man five notifications of arrears, to issue five summons and to arrange two hearings which then had to be cancelled because payment was made.
That case well illustrates the fact that the present law provides too many opportunities for maintenance debtors to evade their legal obligations. En some cases, this may be because they are badly organised or

1073
careless. In other cases it may well be that default occurs deliberately, and out of spite. I think—and I hope—that this Bill should go a long way towards closing the loopholes which maintenance debtors can now exploit.
In introducing the Bill, the Government have been guided by two principles: first, that family responsibility should be actively encouraged; and, secondly, that it is much better to avoid default occuring than to take action once it has occurred. To the lone parent, who is receiving maintenance payments, regularity of payment can be as important as the amount which is ordered. As a result of the Bill's proposals, we hope that the consequences of arrears—time-consuming enforcement proceedings and the need in many cases for lone parents to rely on state support—will be reduced.
I am bound to admit that, for a relatively simple purpose, the Bill looks dauntingly hefty. However, I advise your Lordships not to be daunted by it. It appears complicated because the present law on maintenance is complicated and because it is distributed between a number of enactments. In the Bill, Schedule 1 in fact is larger than the actual clauses of the Bill itself, and many of the clauses repeat the same powers but for the purposes of different legislation.
The Bill's key proposals are, however, simple. The Bill will give the High Court, county courts and magistrates' courts in England and Wales new powers when they are making, varying or enforcing a maintenance order. This includes an order which is made under Section 24 of the Social Security Act 1986.
At present, the courts can order that maintenance payments must be paid either to the court or directly to the recipient. The Bill will give the courts two additional powers so that they may order that payments can alternatively be made either by standing order or by attachment of earnings. At present, attachment of earnings orders can only be made if the debtor consents or if he defaults on his payments because of his wilful neglect or culpable default.
Many maintenance orders are made in Scotland, Northern Ireland or outside the United Kingdom's jurisdiction, but such orders may be registered or confirmed in the magistrates' courts in England and Wales. That is because the debtor comes to live in this country. We have, therefore, decided that it is right that magistrates' courts should also have the power to specify the method of payment when they are varying or enforcing these orders.
The Bill provides for the magistrates' courts to have discretion as to the method of payment which is to be ordered. The High Court and the county courts will also have a discretion whether or not to order a particular method of payment. Before exercising any of their powers, courts will be obliged to have regard to any representations which may be made as to the method of payment by the parties concerned.
We think it likely that the courts will, in many cases, make use of these additional new powers to
1074
order payment by standing order. Most people now have a bank or a building society account and the use of standing orders is firmly established. Their virtue in this context is that, once a maintenance debtor has set up a standing order arrangement, then he need take no further action for payments to be made. The recipient is not dependent on the debtor taking a positive step each week or each month to pay the amount required. Standing orders have the capacity to offer the creditor greater assurance and the debtor greater convenience. They will help to reduce the scope for confrontations over money between men and women in circumstances when tensions and emotions may already be high.
Payment by standing order can obviously also be useful where a maintenance debtor is self-employed and where it is not open to the court to order an employer to attach earnings. The courts may not require the debtor to pay by standing order unless he is first given an opportunity to open a bank or a building society account, if he does not already have one. If there is a good reason why he cannot open an account—perhaps because he is refused banking facilities—the court will select some other method of payment.
The method of payment which is chosen by the court may be important. We obviously do not want debtors to be able to ignore a court's order. In the High Court and in the county courts breach of an order can be treated as contempt but the magistrates' courts have no contempt powers. The Bill gives magistrates' courts an explicit sanction which can be imposed on those who fail to comply with the method of payment which is ordered. This is in line with other powers which magistrates' courts have in similar circumstances.
We realise of course that people's circumstances may change. A maintenance creditor, for example, who may initially have wanted payment by standing order may later become unhappy with this method. As changing the method of payment is essentially an administrative act, the Bill allows any interested party to apply in writing to the justices' clerk for payment by standing order to be varied so as to allow payments to be made to the court. The clerk will have a discretion to refer any application to vary the method of payment to the court if he considers that it is inappropriate for him to deal with it. The Bill also gives justices' clerks the power to amend the method of payment when a person no longer claims income support or when he or she reclaims it if an order under Section 24A of the Social Security Act 1986 has been made.
Although the Bill is intended to reduce the scope for default, we also want to take the opportunity to ensure that, if default does occur, the courts are able to deal with it more effectively than they are at present. The majority of maintenance enforcement proceedings are taken in the magistrates' courts. At present, the justices' clerk cannot take proceedings against a defaulter until the creditor has requested that he should do so. This procedure is time-consuming. It encourages the accumulation of arrears, and it gives the wrong impression to the debtor that his

1075
non-payments go unnoticed by the court. In order to prevent that happening, the Bill makes provision for creditors, where payments are made to the court, to give the justices' clerk a standing authority to enforce arrears as soon as they occur.
This is a modest and, I hope, uncontroversial Bill. Its purpose is simply and solely to ensure that maintenance is paid regularly. By so doing, anxiety on the part of parents and spouses will be reduced, valuable court time will be saved, and state benefit payments will be reduced. I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Earl Ferrers.)
3.58 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, to my infinite relief I am completely underwhelmed and pleasingly undismayed by the weight of the number of representations which I have received from outside bodies on the contents of this Bill. Almost no one seems to object to it root and branch. That is a pleasing state of affairs because on these Benches we welcome the general principles on which it is constructed and support the general thrust of its central recommendations.
As my noble friend Lord Mishcon said in your Lordships' House on 29th October in reply to the Statement on child maintenance:
"The principles behind the Statement—namely, that fathers, together with mothers who can afford it, should be responsible for the maintenance of their children and that the children come first—are obviously acceptable to the whole House and certainly to the Benches that I represent". [Official Report, 29/10/90; col. 1695.]
Of course, the present system of maintenance is imperfect. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor described it that same day as unnecessarily fragmented and uncertain in its results. It is based largely on discretion and is operated through hundreds of courts and social security offices throughout the United Kingdom. This modest Bill is a useful first step towards achieving greater justice and greater efficiency. We shall do our best to improve it in detail and to better some of its provisions at Committee stage.
I am relieved that the Bill is comparatively modest. There has been too much talk in the media and elsewhere regarding the pursuit of recalcitrant fathers, forcing them to face up to their responsibilities and punishing the miscreants with terrible penalties. I pay tribute to the Government's decision not to impose swingeing punishments on anyone who commits an offence under the Bill. Such people—usually, though not invariably, men—are mostly inadequate and selfishly careless rather than cunning and criminal. Indeed any justice of the peace can attest that the overwhelming majority of those who default on maintenance payments either cannot pay because they have got themselves into an inextricable financial mess or conscientiously oppose what they see as the injustice of the law.
A classic case is that of the man who leaves his wife and children for love of another lady. He willingly
1076
takes responsibility for the support of that lady's existing children as well as any others that he may have with her. He may well lavish care and attention on those children so that he has no money left to provide for his own. He feels that he has done his duty. Unfortunately for him the law takes a very different view. Many of those people need to be taught more than they need to be terrified. The Bill increases the flexibility and sensitivity with which the courts can treat such offenders.
The context into which that must be set is the basic problem of failure to pay. A 1980 survey of divorces in Scotland found that no payment at all was made in one-third of cases. Another study found that 21 per cent. of magistrates' court orders were more than £500 in arrears, and another 10 per cent. more than £2,000 in arrears. Two-thirds of orders were more than seven weeks in arrears and more than one in five were over two years in arrears.
Lone parents and their children, often on extremely low incomes, cannot afford to wait for late maintenance payments. In the event of non-payment courts can order an attachment of earnings, issue a warrant of distress or, as a final resort, order committal to prison. In practice they rarely do. Indeed, courts often waive arrears, sometimes for perfectly understandable reasons. Uncertain maintenance is a choice which lone parents cannot afford and many opt for the certainty of benefit.
The Bill must be judged against that background. We have some reservations and questions. I can outline the most important under two headings: those which concern attachment of earnings orders, and those which concern other methods of payment. Attachment of earnings orders are not always as effective as they may at first appear. Although there exist provisions to prevent default, debtors are often able to evade the effect and the orders by moonlighting. It is often difficult and complex for the courts to take that element of work into account. Proposals in the Bill before us do nothing to counteract that.
On the other side of the coin we should like to see some provision made to protect the privacy of employees who have an attachment of earnings order made against them. It is not a sentimental matter of tender loving care for the bruised psyche of the defaulter; it is a practical observation that if they know their privacy will be protected more debtors will elect to pay by attachment of earnings. Those orders, where they are effective, are an efficient, predictable and reliable way of applying a maintenance order. The Bill may well be a better Bill if a little care and attention can be given to revising the provisions in that area.
Other methods of payment are described in Clause 1(5)(b) and subsequently. The Bill makes a distinction between the powers of the High Court and the county courts and those of the magistrates' courts. In the former the powers are discretionary; in the latter they are mandatory. It has been represented to me that it is not entirely clear why that distinction must be made.

1077
Perhaps it would be wiser to impose a consistent system unless good reasons for doing otherwise can be shown.
There is also doubt as to whether the use of standing orders or direct debits will be effective. To operate a standing order both the debtor and the creditor must have a bank account. Perhaps the debtor does not have a bank account. The Bill has foreseen that and directs that the debtor can be ordered to open a bank account. But that will only help if there is a bank which will accept him, and if the debtor puts money into the account. It may be difficult for somebody with a bad record of debt or other disabling characteristics to find a bank which will accept him. What will happen if he does not put money into the account? Some of your Lordships may know from personal experience that few things in life are more depressing to the human psyche than a bank account with no money in it. It will therefore remain both dismal and easy for a debtor to evade his responsibilities despite the existence of a court order compelling him to open a bank account.
Secondly, the power described in Clause 1(6)(b) to order a debtor to open a bank account has obvious civil liberties implications. It is likely to provoke hostility. There are those—not a few—who will strenuously affirm that it is the inalienable right of every Englishman, or Welshman for that matter, not to open a bank account if he does not wish to. There may be those citizens of this country who, for religious reasons, are conscientiously opposed to our banks and all their works.
Thirdly, and on a related topic, the procedure in a magistrates' court when a method of payment order is varied from a standing order or a direct debit to payments through the court clerk seems not to have within it sufficient opportunity for either party to object. Obviously it would be heavy-handed to hold a hearing over a minor administrative change. But it is important that both sides know about the application and are able to comment. I hope that at a later stage we may be able to propose an amendment to ensure that the clerk must be able to prove that the parties are aware of the application before proceeding with it. I hope that may be helpful.
Which things having been said—if I may conclude with an ablative absolute—we on these Benches welcome the Bill. We will help to steer it safely through your Lordships' House hoping for a calm sea and a following wind.
4.8 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, this Bill deals with a tiny area of a very large social problem which, although easy to state in broad terms, is exceedingly complicated in detail. A high proportion of marriages collapse de facto and de jure, though failure in one attempt provides only a mild deterrent—at least in statistical terms—against partners trying again either in formal wedlock or in its irregular substitute.
The victims of our by now very well established system of serial polygamy are some 1.5 million
1078
children and their mothers who live permanently or for periods as one-parent families, the majority of them as paupers compelled to live on income supplement. In theory the law imposes an obligation upon husbands and fathers to maintain their wives and children. In practice over the past two-and-a-half centuries it has never been possible to fully enforce it. The reality was that the Victorian poor law, the National Assistance Board, the Supplementary Benefits Commission, or now income support, actually provided the subsistence which was ordered by the courts but which was unpaid or paid irregularly by husbands and fathers having only one income to support two families.
By 1980 maintenance orders were producing no more than 12 per cent. of the income of divorced and separated women on supplementary benefit, the commission providing the remainder. Moreover, even if the orders had been paid regularly and in full, recipients would still have been on supplementary benefit as the orders were invariably for amounts less, and often substantially less, than their entitlements to minimum rates of benefit. Thus, receipts from court orders were marginal and payments of supplementary benefit were the chief elements in the incomes of such women. That is why one of the main recommendations of the last departmental committee to report on the subject —the Finer Committee on One-Parent Families in 1974—was the establishment of a family court, one main function of which would be to bring the private law of family maintenance into a realistic relationship with the public law of social security.
A further complication is that in England three separate systems of family law have developed over the past two and a half centuries and all three were largely intact 20 years ago. One system made provision for those who could afford access or who could obtain it through legal aid to a superior court of record with a jurisdiction to issue licences to marry again. Another gave a restrictive jurisdiction to magistrates to make summary orders to deal with the family problems of people who for cultural, social or financial reasons did not or could not utilise the superior court. The third system of family law had been embodied in the poor law and taken over after 1948 by the new National Assistance Board and its successors.
The principle of widows' pensions enacted in 1925 has never been extended to the other groups of unsupported wives or mothers who still retain both their legal right to maintenance from husbands and fathers and to assistance from the social security authorities. Accordingly, we still retain different tiers of courts with overlapping jurisdictions and different methods and machinery for collecting and enforcing maintenance. For example, the magistrates' courts alone possess a court collecting office. The normal practice is for maintenance orders of the superior courts to be registered for enforcement in the summary courts, the chief business of which remains petty crime. Again, that is why the Finer Committee recommended that what had been family laws for

1079
different social classes should be brought together in a single unified family law for the whole community, administered in a family court.
The very limited provisions of this Bill—one can see how limited they are both against that background and against the recommendations of the Finer Committee, which examined the whole area in great detail—are worth while as far as they go. They are supported from these Benches in much the same terms as they were supported by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. Nevertheless, I should make clear that we shall be making many serious and severe criticisms of the White Paper and of the proposed children support agency. However, in terms of the detail of the Bill, it is useful that attachment orders can be made immediately without waiting for default, though it is necessary to recall that from the very beginning when attachment orders were introduced in, I believe, 1958, the promise has always been far greater than the actual performance in producing money.
Secondly, it must be remembered that the main enforcement agency, the magistrates' courts, are very short of resources even for the maintenance orders of superior courts. They are short of staff. They can no longer, as in the old days, use their warrant officers to follow up recalcitrant husbands of fathers. For example, I understand that the police now refuse to put maintenance warrants on their computer, so it is very difficult for courts to follow up the men concerned. There are similar difficulties in serving papers. I am told that very rarely a legal aid certificate may be extended to cover the costs of a professions process server, but that is by no means a widespread practice. I understand that the magistrates' courts have great difficulty in serving papers.
The results of all that is that it becomes an extremely time-consuming and difficult business for a woman, even with the willing assistance of the court, to pursue her maintenance effectively. I am surprised that the Minister, in outlining the Bill's proposals, which he did with great clarity, failed to suggest that the Government would provide additional resources to the summary courts to enable them to fulfil the further functions envisaged by the Bill.
Two questions are often asked about maintenance proceedings, either when negotiations are taking place or after an order has been made. First, people want to know whether the payments can be index-linked to protect them against inflation and to save the costs and upsets of future proceedings to vary the order. Index-linked maintenance orders were at one time thought not to be possible because the Inland Revenue would give tax relief only on payments of a "sum certain". Now that maintenance payments have no significant tax consequences following the Finance Act 1988, it is to be hoped that there will be no impediment to having index-linked orders. It would certainly be a welcome development if the Minister could offer the hope of government support for such a development.
Secondly, it is often asked whether the payments can be made by standing order or by attachment.
1080
Until now the answer had to be that a standing order cannot be imposed but can only be set up if the payer agrees. Furthermore, such an agreement can only be enforceable if the obligation is made a formal undertaking to the court. Reasonable payers tend to agree to set up standing orders without causing any problems. It is the difficult, disorganised and recalcitrant who can be brought into line by the provisions of this Bill. A standing order or a deduction from pay gives the recipient greater certainty that the money will arrive and no time. It gives the payer a good evidential record with which to meet any claim that payments have not been made or to settle any dispute about the quantum of arrears.
Obligatory payment by standing order will improve the position of those whose spouses like to use personal delivery of the weekly or monthly maintenance cheque or cash as an opportunity for a good row. Against that, if a payment which is supposed to be made by standing order is not made, either because the payer cancels the instruction to the bank or because the payer's bank will not make the payment on the grounds that an overdraft limit has been reached, the recipient may not know until up to a month has clasped and her next bank statement arrives. Meanwhile she may unwittingly get into debt with her own bank meeting payments expected to be covered by the standing order.
There are three improvements which I hope that the Minister will be willing to consider on the procedural level of the Bill. The first is to give powers to judges and registrars to make any order for enforcement that is in the court's power whenever the debtor is required to attend for examination of his means and wilful default is found. In that way accounts and assets could immediately be frozen by injunction or charged to make it more, difficult for liabilities to be evaded.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister will be able to consider the removal of the anomalous unavailability of legal aid to issue a county court judgment summons. That is perpetuated in the Legal Aid Act 1988. Thirdly, it would be very helpful if the Inland Revenue could be obliged to adjust tax codings of those in default as a means of getting maintenance deducted. I ask the Minister whether the Government would be willing to require the Inland Revenue to reconsider its refusal to date to co-operate in that way in the enforcement of maintenance.
From these Benches we welcome the Bill but regard it as containing no more than very minor improvements. We shall wish to make far-reaching criticisms of the wider proposals which we shall be debating when the Bill based on the White Paper comes before the House.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, like others of your Lordships, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his clear explanation of the Bill. I am also very privileged to follows the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, the leading sociologist in this branch of social pathology, policy and law. The noble Lord was part author of the statistical study of separated wives which was seminal.

1081
He was a leading member of the Finer Committee on one-parent families which has been referred to. The early death of Mr. Justice Finer was a great loss. It is a solace to have his lieutenant, the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, to carry on and explain the policy.
The Bill is a side shoot—marginal perhaps—of the White Paper, to which the noble Earl referred, called Children Come First. But we are bound to ask ourselves: do we really mean that? Today, one-third of marriages end in divorce. That is double the figure of 20 years ago and double the figure since the passing of the deplorable Divorce Reform Act 1969. The number of divorces is rising. Of the one-third of marriages which end in divorce half of them concern children under the age of 16. If society is facilitating the break-up of such marriages, is it really putting children first? There can be no question that we have facilitated, even encouraged, people to rush for divorce which, as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, aptly said, is a licence to remarry.
The first question is this: where do we place the institution of marriage in our policies and priorities? On that there is a very large consensus. It is true that there is, and always has been, an extreme radical wing which looks askance on marriage as an institution. It has lately had a very able exposition in the first document produced by the Institute for Public Policy Research which has the advantage of being chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.
Undoubtedly the authors of that paper, quite consonantly with the tradition for which they stand, are by no means enamoured of the family as an institution; neither the nuclear family, which is father, mother and children, nor the extended family which we do not have in our law. Other systems of law have it although we have it as a matter of social fact in some grades of society. On the whole there is a consensus that the family is a valuable institution and that it is the best way of rearing future citizens. It is at best a nursery of love. Are we really doing what we can to buttress the family as an institution? The Law Commission's proposals are quite inadequate if that is the objective: in fact, they are nugatory. What are we doing to help the subsistence of marriage where the children are under 16?
One simple way would be to stipulate that there shall be no divorce where there is a child under 16. If one takes the secular view of marriage and divorce, that seems perfectly sensible when coupled, as it should be in the secular view, with divorce by consent—immediate consent—if the children are over 16. I say expressly "the secular view" because people who regard marriage as a sacrament or, as the Church of England holds, in the nature of a sacrament, will not countenance divorce by consent, although in fact the Church of England did so in supporting the 1969 Act.
Ought we not to recognise the conscientious feelings of those who regard marriage as a sacrament or as being in the nature of a sacrament by allowing them to stipulate before marriage that it is a marriage that shall not be dissolved? Certainly one would have to have judicial separation, but there would be no
1082
divorce if the parties agreed that there should be no divorce. When that idea was floated during the passage of the 1969 Act the proponents of the Act objected that it would be instituting two classes of marriage—a first class and a second class. But what a confession it is that the marriage which is undissolvable and indissoluble is a first class marriage but the marriage which is easily dissoluble, as under the 1969 Act, is a second class marriage. That is obviously a matter which we shall have to consider.
It is only after one has worked out what should be the policy there that one comes to deal with the pathology of marriage break down and the separation of parties. At the moment, as the noble Earl pointed out clearly and as was reinforced by what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord McGregor, the enforcement of remedies in that situation is most unsatisfactory.
Finally, I should like to take up what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, regarding the recommendations of the Finer Committee. I refer to the question of family courts. On the Commons consideration of the Courts and Legal Services Bill I certainly understood my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to say categorically that what was proposed in the Bill would lead to a system of family courts. If so, the White Paper and this Bill is a retrograde step. The noble Earl mentioned the proliferation of courts. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, used the word "fragmentary". At the very least we have the High Court and all the multifarious magistrates' courts. They will continue and are given new powers. Why was not their jurisdiction centred in a family court as recommended by the Finer Committee?
The same point applies to the social side. One finds in the White Paper the proposal to set up a new agency for enforcement and the collection of maintenance. Why do we need one? All the information is at the moment in the hands of the Department of Social Security. If we need a new agency, why is it not the welfare wing of the family court? Opinion has been running strongly in favour of a system of family courts each having a welfare department and an adjudicatory department in the same way as the Conseil D'etat in France in a different context has its administrative wing and its judicial wing. Matters would go for adjudication only if they could not be settled by the administrative, social and welfare sides of the family court.
Although many of the provisions of the Bill are undoubtedly an improvement and are to be welcomed in that way as making maintenance more easily enforceable. I am bound to express my grave disappointment that the main thrust of the Bill has been away from what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor seemed to promise and what so many of us have been seeking for so long.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend the Minister for explaining the Bill to us. It is consistent with the

1083
Children Act 1989 which stated that the welfare of the child is paramount and emphasised the responsibility of parents. I wholeheartedly support the intention behind the Bill. However, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I question the way in which the Bill will be implemented. I cannot see it being implemented well in its present form.
A single parent bringing up children faces difficult problems. If maintenance to the lone parent ordered by the court is not forthcoming, the plight of the parent is even worse. If the lone parent has to go to court to seek help and legal aid to make her husband, or wife as the case may be, pay the maintenance which the court has ordered, the burden is almost intolerable.
I should like my noble friend to explain some of the provisions of the Bill. I have had a great deal to do with parents in respect of whom the court has made an attachment of earnings order. Has my noble friend facts and figures to show that this is a successful way of obtaining maintenance? My experience is that it is not. Not only is it not a suitable way of obtaining help for the lone parent without maintenance; it is almost counter-productive. If an attachment of earnings order is made, the man, even if in a good job, will leave his job as soon as he possibly can. If he is then pursued by the Inland Revenue he will move again. If he is further pursued he will move out of the town in which he lives. We need to be sure whether the attachment of earnings order procedure is working now. I find from my experience of dealing with such cases that it is not. Are we wise to pursue this line?
With regard to the next section of the Bill, I feel that I must ask the same question as that put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord McGregor. Why is there a distinction between the powers of the High Court and the county court, which are discretionary, and those of the magistrates' courts, which are mandatory? My understanding of the matter is not clear. Perhaps my noble friend will be kind enough to explain it to me.
I turn now to the question of a debtor having to open a bank account. I wonder whether this provision is practicable. Problems may arise where a debtor is not able to open a bank account because the bank refuses the application. In such a situation, under Clause 2(4)(b) of the Bill the debtor would not have failed to open the account "without reasonable excuse". Therefore, the court could not order a debtor to open an account. In any event, even if that were to be the case, he may not have the money; I cannot imagine any bank accepting such a person.
I have some experience of this. A young man I knew called Roger wanted to open a bank account. I took him to the bank. He had been in care and did not know how to open a bank account. The bank manager was very pleased to have another customer. However, he asked me whether I would sign the form confirming that the young man was a suitable person. I was bound to ask Roger "Do you think you are a suitable person because you know you steal and tell lies?" At that point the bank manager said that he could not allow him to open a bank account. How could such a
1084
situation be possible? Therefore, while I agree with the intentions behind the Bill, I do not believe that the way in which it is to be implemented is either practicable or possible.
I should now like to pursue the recommendations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. First, I believe that if we had family courts as recommended by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor we should be going a long way towards solving the problem. Secondly, the divorce Bill—which has not been put before the House and was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech—recommends that a couple who want to divorce must initially register the fact that they wish to do so. There must then be a period of conciliation during which the conciliation service and the probation service could help the couple; but the divorce would not be granted until the maintenance of the children and the spouse and the question of access were settled. If that Bill is introduced, we shall at least go some way towards achieving the recommendations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
In my view, we must start at an earlier stage to help divorcing parents. We should not issue a maintenance order until both parents have worked out between themselves, or with the help of a conciliator, what the agreements will be. If that process were to be followed, we would reduce the need for so much court procedure. As I have already said, I support the intentions behind the Bill but I regret to say that I do not support the manner in which it is to be implemented.
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, if I had known that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was going to give us the benefit of his usual wisdom this afternoon I should have withdrawn my name from the speakers list. I agree with everything he said. In common with my noble friend Lady Faithfull, I must say that we as women are most grateful that so many of your Lordships, being of the other sex, take such an interest in the welfare of women who are perhaps left without, as they seem to think, enough money.
I have carried out a great deal of research among people as well as among organisations. I have come to the conclusion —which I do not expect to be popular with anyone—that these men are having a very raw deal at this time. We seem to be pursuing them for something which they probably do not have. They may refuse to pay for reasons which are not given to us or to the court. They may indeed be family reasons. In most cases they are being asked to leave the matrimonial home and the children to whom they are as devoted as the mothers. The result is that very often they are under a terrible emotional strain. They may be sacked from their jobs and they have no home. Moreover, they do not even have their children, to whom, as I said, they are devoted. They are often to be found on our streets. It is a very sad state of affairs and if on top of all that they are to be hounded for

1085
maintenance they will go into hiding. I agree with the noble Earl, who I think said that such men can always be found via the computer, presumably at Newcastle.
Who are these men? They are husbands who leave their wives; they are fathers who leave their wives and their children; and they are men who leave their girlfriends and the children whom they have fathered. It has always seemed to me that the break-up of a relationship—not necessarily a marriage but people living together—is two-sided. It is split 50:50. It is very rare that one can say categorically that it was either his or her fault. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that both sides are usually equally to blame. However, where there are children—and we have all decided that children are paramount—they are the ones who are hurt. Whatever anyone says or tries to do, the children in such a situation are desperately hurt.
I turn now to the reasons for the failure to pay. One of the oganisations with which I have been in touch maintains that this is the reason behind the failure to pay. A man may be willing to pay but, despite the fact that the learned judge who granted the divorce had told him, "You may have access," the mother refuses to grant access and throws him out every time he appears. He may then say, "Why should I give this woman to whom I used to be married"—or with whom he used to live—"money when I am not allowed to see my will pay?" I am assured that that is the reason for the failure to pay. That is the issue to which we should be addressing our attention and not how we can retrieve the money. We must concentrate upon why these men do not want to pay.
I can assure noble Lords that the men to whom I have talked —they represent quite a large body of people—are very willing to pay. On the whole they can pay. However, if they are unable to see their children they say, "Why should I pay?" That is an issue which we are not able to address within the scope of this Bill. We are dealing merely with how to obtain money from someone who has been ordered to pay but who will not do so. I entirely agree with the argument adequately put forward by my noble friend Lady Faithfull that it is quite absurd to put in a Bill the requirement that a man must open a bank account.
I also believe that the attachment of earnings order, which I used to make quite frequently when I dealt with such cases, is impractical. I say that because, although the man may ask his employer to help him in respect of such an order, there is a stigma attached to it. Those working in the office of the employer are bound to know that the man is in trouble and is not paying the money due to his former partner. Then, as my noble friend said, the man leaves his job and is unemployed. The state then has to pay not just him but the woman with whom he lived.
I appreciate that this is a difficult social problem. I agree with the principle that preferably both parents should always be financially responsible for the children, but when it is impossible to make the man pay I am afraid that the state, as it has done for a long time, has to pick up the bill. I do not know what we
1086
shall do with the Bill. I do not like it. It is far too long. It repeats itself over and over again. I shall be interested to see what my noble friend the Minister makes of it in Committee. I expect that we shall all table a number of amendments.
4.51 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I did not have my name down to speak but I cannot fail to support all that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said. Like her, I have always been a great supporter of the cause of my sex. I have always supported sex discrimination laws and the equality for which we have fought. Like the noble Baroness, I have all too frequently met cases similar to those she described. There has been a strange turn of events. All too often now the man suffers because the woman appears to get the best of the argument. Sadly we all know cases within our own families. As I said one day, I do not need to watch "Dallas"; I could write the script from my own family.
There is no doubt that some way must be found to deal in the Bill with the circumstances described by the noble Baroness. The matter is no longer black and white. When I sat in court we frequently made attachment of earnings orders. The trade unions found the men who were forced to pay. The climate has changed. We no longer have the simple obligation of marriage or non-marriage. People live together voluntarily. It must be a two-party thing. I hope that during the course of the Bill's passage we can table some amendments to take account of the circumstances so eloquently described by the noble Baroness.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Meakswell: My Lords, perhaps I may apologise to the Minister for entering the debate rather late and unannounced. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Phillips and the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady Macleod, for their contributions. They revealed a depth and breadth of understanding of the problems that unfortunately was not apparent from previous speakers. We must recognise that the problem is far more difficult than just finding a financial resolution or an easy, quick fix by the courts.
I want to concentrate on two aspects of the Bill. The first relates to its general thrust. The second relates to one minor detail, although when I come to it your Lordships will appreciate that it can be a significant detail. I am concerned that we have the Bill at all. I am afraid that it reflects the Government's philosophy and attitude to the situation that faces our society—the break-up of marriages and the results. We are doing things the wrong way round. We are saying, "Here is a Bill, which will become an Act, which will constrain and enforce, effectively, a contract that was not mutually agreed between the parties." That is one of the biggest problems with the concept of enforcement of maintenance payments. It is not as though there is a contract between two parties mutually entered into. It is a one-sided affair. The courts will be taking a view of a situation and imposing their reaction to it.

1087
The implication is that it is all very well to have children so long as you can pay for them. That draws a distinction between well-off members of our society and poor members of our society. In this day and age that is not a distinction that we can allow to continue. One or two previous speakers alluded to the fact that people often separate because one party is excluded from the home, the affections of the partner, and the ability to relate and live with their children. That is the partner whom we penalise. It is perceived to be unfair.
I do not say that the Bill is against men only or women only. One or two speakers tended to say that it is all to do with getting money out of men. That is not the situation that we face. At the moment we are already faced with the enforcement of maintenance payments against women. Heaven forbid that it should come about that my wife and I separate. However, my wife earns more than I do, and if she decided to leave and I was looking after the children I should be expected to demand money from her. We are not talking just about men.
So much for the generalities. I shall mention one detail. One of the things that has come about over the past few years is the increase in the use of direct debits in place of standing orders. With a standing order, a set amount passes from one bank account to another at a set time. It continues. On the other hand, a direct debit relates to where money is paid from one bank account into another but the amount is not determined by the person paying. It is determined by the other party, who effectively says to one's bank, "Please pay us this amount". The other party is free to vary the amount.
I recently had a dispute with BT because it has stopped accepting standing orders and will accept a direct debit only for regular payments. I refuse to pay on that basis. I and no one else shall be the person to determine what is paid out of my bank account. That is only reasonable. The Bill's Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states:
"by standing order or some similar method".
I make a plea that we ensure that in the Bill we do not give the courts power to demand direct debit payments because that would only compound the non-payment problem.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships two examples of the situation that can result from divorce and the payment of maintenance. One example is where a man was effectively excluded from his household. He loved his wife and children. He wanted to contribute to their maintenance, and he did so as long as he stayed in employment. But the very fact of separation virtually destroyed his ability to work. He lost his job and became virtually destitute. However, whenever he has any money he contributes because he still loves his family. It is an incredible situation.
There is another example about which I know. I met someone recently who, for the last 20 years, has lived in the black economy solely to prevent any earnings which he may receive being paid to his wife because of the circumstances of his separation. Surely
1088
this whole Bill is a complete waste of paper in those two situations, because we are discussing this area of social difficulty in completely the wrong way.
5.1 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the welcome in general that you have given to the Bill and for the debate that we have had upon it. It has shown your Lordships' care and concern about what to do when marriages break down. I was glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, paid such a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, for what he said and for his knowledge of these matters, which is of course considerable.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, welcomed the Bill. He said that it was a modest Bill, and it is a modest Bill. We never claimed that it was anything more than that. But we thought that it sought to meet a certain area of difficulty, and that is what we have done. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for saying that he would help this Bill through the House with a calm sea and a following wind, which I think is a nice nautical expression for which we are most grateful.
I was even grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithfull who said that she supported the Bill for what it intended but not for the way in which it did it. I am bound to say that if the Government ever produced a Bill with which my noble friend was wholly content, I think that I should be tempted to adjourn the House not during pleasure but with pleasure.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said that a third of marriages end in divorce, which is double what it was 20 years ago. It is as well to remember those rather horrifying facts. He said that it is sometimes necessary to consider where we place the institution of marriage in our lives, and that the family is a good institution and a nursery of love. Few of us would think that the institution of marriage was anything other than highly commendable and highly desirable, but the sad part is that somehow the pressures of modern life seem designed to try to break it up.
When marriages break up they cause troubles, sorrows and endless sadnesses. It think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who said that sometimes people nowadays live together without being married. It seems the easy option. It seems the convenient thing for people to do. I merely suggest that it seldom results in real happiness, and when things go wrong it is inevitably the children who suffer as well as everyone else.
The sad part again is that like all matters which are fairly far apart there is a slender dividing line: goodness is quite close to badness; kindness is quite close to unkindness; love is quite close to hatred, although they are opposites. It is sad when people can marry and love each other that when they get divorced their love can almost turn to hatred to such a degree that, as the noble Lord, Lord Monks well, said one person can be prepared to make all his earnings on the black economy for the simple reason that he did not

1089
want his ex-wife to have any of his earnings. Of course I do not think that we shall ever get over that problem, but it re-emphasises the fact that we should do all that we can in our various spheres of life to try to bolster up the cause of marriage, and try to encourage it rather than subject it so frequently to such risk and sorrow.
In this Bill we have tried to address one area where we think it could give a little more happiness and a little more contentment. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who said that the Bill was repetitive—no, I am sorry, it was my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve. Of course she is quite right. On the face of it it appears repetitive but that is because it addresses a number of matters of a similar nature and they all have to be addressed individually. Therefore, while my noble friend may feel keen to put down a lot of amendments to make the Bill simpler, I hope that she will be hesitant about putting down too many because I doubt whether she will find that it will be all that easy to make it that much simpler.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, was concerned about the discretion in the High Court and the county courts. The noble Lord is correct that the approach in the Bill differs as regards the High Court and the county courts and as regards the magistrates' courts. The reason is that the magistrates' courts' powers are contained entirely in statute whereas the higher courts have both statutory and common law powers. The intention is to give the courts new powers without interfering with existing powers. The most convenient way of achieving this has been adopted in drafting the Bill in its present form.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, was concerned about maintenance law and the family courts. The law of maintenance and related issues of jurisdiction are part of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor's review of the family justice system. My noble and learned friend's department is engaged in a wide-ranging review of family law and procedure, with the objective of creating in stages a single family justice system applying a single body of substantive law.
The aims are to ensure that the interests of children are given priority; that the personal responsibility of parents for their family is emphasised; that the system for hearing and deciding family cases is improved and rationalised, making the most effective use of existing court and judicial resources, matching cases to the most appropriate level of court; and removing from the courts functions that could more effectively be dealt with elsewhere.
On the magistrates' courts' resources, about which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, was concerned, I would only say that it is accepted that enforcement proceedings can be difficult and time consuming, and can be a drain on the courts' resources. It is for this reason that the Bill's proposals should be helpful in preventing default in the first place, and the creation of the child support agency will relieve the courts of
1090
enforcement work. Instead there will be a specialist and dedicated new body to do that in place of the courts.
The noble Lord also referred to the Inland Revenue, and asked whether it was possible to adjust the defaulter's tax coding. It is not within the scope of this particular Bill to do that. Indeed, the entire system for reassessing and collecting child maintenance will be reformed by the "children come first" proposals. However, I would agree, without commitment, to give further thought to this matter in consultation with other departments. I shall try to discover whether the Inland Revenue can assist in the matter of maintenance schemes.
The noble Lord also referred to index linking. The White Paper on child support proposes that child maintenance awards under the proposed formula would be reassessed each year and would make index linking unnecessary. Orders for spousal maintenance will not be covered by this formula. However, index linking is not without its difficulties and while it will be borne in mind by the Government as they develop their policy in this field, I cannot commit the Government to any particular line on this matter at present.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred to family courts. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor did not give an undertaking to create family courts. However, the Government have embarked upon a review of substantive family law and related issues of jurisdiction and procedure. They will be informed by the need to rationalise the use of existing courts and resources and to match cases to the level of court or judge according to the weight and complexity of the cases. Although the review aims to create a rationalised family justice system, that does not mean that it will lead to what the noble and learned Lord has described as family courts.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull referred to the usefulness of attachment of earnings orders. There are of course circumstances where attachment of earnings orders will not work. However, I believe that frequently they are successful. The purpose of the Bill is merely to make such orders available in circumstances where they are not available at present, thereby increasing the flexibility of the courts' powers. It will of course be for the courts to decide whether to impose such an order in the circumstances of any particular case. My noble friend was also concerned about divorce and conciliation. Divorce reforms are part of the review of family law by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, as is the connected issue of conciliation. The Government are considering the Law Commissioners' report on divorce. They welcome that as a useful contribution to the debate on this important matter. The Government wish to hear views from all interested quarters on the commissioners' proposals. However, it would be premature for us to reach any conclusions on the future of divorce now.
My noble friend was also concerned about the power to require a bank account to be opened. The

1091
power is clearly not relevant to cases where a person is refused facilities by a bank. The Bill contains safeguards for the debtor. The power is needed to prevent someone who has an account in good order from closing it in order to frustrate a court's maintenance order. We do not expect the power to be used often but it is a useful deterrent. The argument that the debtor may not have any money is not a good one. The maintenance order will reflect his financial circumstances. The Bill is about the methods of payment and not about how much should be paid.
Noble Lords made a number of other points and I am most grateful for them. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, remarked that most of his criticisms were of the White Paper. I am glad to know that because I hope it means that the majority of his criticisms will not be deflected onto this Bill and that he will help to give it an easy passage. I am grateful to noble Lords for having given the Bill such a welcome.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Namibia Bill [H.L.]
5.14 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Namibia's attainment of independence and entry into the Commonwealth on 21st March this year were a great source of satisfaction to Britain. As a co-author of the UN plan for Namibian independence adopted in 1978 and a major contributor to the UN Transition Group (UNTAG), we played an important role in the independence process.
We have built up a close working relationship with the president and the new government. Our aid programme is an important element in this relationship. We have pledged £10 million over the next three years which is to be devoted to police training, education and health, and is designed to encourage good government, accountability and cost-effective use of resources. At President Nujoma's request and in addition to the £10 million package, we are also helping to train the Namibian army.
The purpose of the Bill before us today is to modify existing legislation to place Namibia on an equal footing with other Commonwealth countries for the purposes of UK law. The Bill follows earlier precedents, the most recent being the Pakistan Act 1990. It involves purely technical amendments to a number of Acts to apply them to Namibia. The Bill covers Namibia's relationship with the Commonwealth Institute. It provides for Namibian forces to be included in the definition of Commonwealth forces with implications for their legal status when visiting the UK, for example for training. It makes provision for the exercise of command and discipline when British and Commonwealth forces are serving together and for attachments of members of one force to another. The Bill also ensures that regulatory powers applying to
1092
the whaling industry will not apply to ships registered in Namibia as it is not appropriate for these powers to extend to the shipping of independent members of the Commonwealth.
Clause 2(2) of the Bill deems the Act to have come into force on 21st March 1990, the day Namibia achieved independence and became a member of the Commonwealth. There is no technical reason for this, but clearly there is a strong symbolic value in deeming the provisions of the Act to come into effect on Namibia's independence day.
I should remind your Lordships that the immigration and electoral implications of Namibia's admission to the Commonwealth have been dealt with separately by an Order in Council which came into effect on 25th August 1990. This added Namibia to the list of Commonwealth countries in Schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1981. With this brief summary of the Bill, I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Earl of Caithness.)
5.17 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, we are grateful for the clear explanation that the Minister gave of this small but nevertheless significant Bill. As the Minister said, the Bill aims to modify certain United Kingdom enactments in relation to the Commonwealth Institute, the armed services and visiting forces, and shipping in the light of the admission of Namibia to the Commonwealth. I, too, wish to take this opportunity to reiterate the sense of pleasure we all felt at Namibia's independence some months ago. I wish to express the high hopes we had and have that the people of Namibia will enjoy better lives now that they have emerged from the maelstrom of events which occurred in the long period of conflict which unfortunately lasted for many years in their country.
Although it is true that the eight months of independence have brought a kind of peace to Namibia, they have not, unfortunately, brought a glimmer of prosperity. It is on this worrying aspect of the extreme poverty of many areas in Namibia that I wish to comment. I wish to ask the Minister some questions about the part that Britain will play in this matter.
I believe that UNICEF is in a strong position to assess the needs of the Namibian people as that organisation drew up a country programme recommendation for assistance for Namibia for the transition period and for the first year of independence. In addition to establishing a child survival programme, UNICEF assisted in the repatriation of exiled Namibians. As many as 42,000 people were assisted in their return to Namibia.
The areas of main concern during both the transition period and the first months of independence were identified by UNICEF as, first, the larger numbers of vulnerable groups, including people who were internally displaced or had been led to migrate—they were often led to migrate to Crowded

1093
peri-urban areas—due to war and rural insecurity. A further vulnerable group includes populations in remote areas.
The second area of concern relates to the fragmentation of services and misallocation of resources resulting from the retention of several administrative authorities in different areas of the country, many of which follow their own policies and priorities. That is a legacy of the apartheid concept and remains a problem for the new country. Thirdly, a strain has been placed upon the health and education services by budget shortfalls, resulting partly from drastic reductions in South Africa's budget subsidy to Namibia but also from the internal resource allocation policies of the various administrations. A further major problem is the critical food security situation affecting poor households in northern areas due to a combination of long-term and short-term factors, including drought, displacement and income losses resulting from South Africa's military withdrawal and subsequent employment cutbacks.
Those stark facts make it clear that Namibia needs the strongest support in order to leave the launching pad and fly under its own steam. There are many ways in which the international community and the United Kingdom in particular can contribute. I should like to ask the Minister two or three questions in that regard.
First, there can be no doubt that the major unresolved question following independence is the future of Walvis Bay. The Minister mentioned it yesterday in the debate on the Commonwealth. The return of the port, which is required under UN Resolution 432, is critical to Namibia. Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking in order to influence the South African Government on the implementation of the UN resolution?
Secondly, in regard to economic aid, Namibia had hoped for a 19,000 tonnes beef quota under the European Community's Lomé Convention but the Commission recommended only a 13,000 tonnes limit. That quota has still to be ratified and therefore perhaps the Minister will say whether Her Majesty's Government will seek an increase for Namibia under the Lomé agreement. Will the Minister also say whether the Government are taking steps to ensure that Namibia receives least developed country status from the European Community, which would be of the greatest assistance to Namibia in acquiring EC aid funds?
Lastly, can the Minister tell the House when the Commonwealth Development Corporation will complete its survey of possible investment projects? Is he able to provide an estimate of the number of personnel from Voluntary Service Overseas and other agencies which are currently assisting Namibia? I should be grateful for answers to those questions, but as I did not give the Minister notice of the questions I should be equally grateful if he would write to me with the answers. I believe that that is an area in which the
1094
United Kingdom can be of enormous assistance to Namibia in its struggle to begin its independent life in better shape.
5.25 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Earl for his very clear introduction of the Bill, which we welcome. Because we support the principles of the Commonwealth we also welcome the fact that Namibia has joined the Commonwealth.
We are conscious of the fact that Namibia is an extraordinary country. In area it is much the same size as France and the united Germany but it has a population of just over 1 million people. It has had a difficult history over the past 60 years, culminating in the 1960s in the fight against a cynical apartheid regime imposed illegally by South Africa. Resistance to that regime began peacefully but unhappily ended in violence as that was seen as the only means by which the nationalist organisation, SWAPO, could continue to put pressure on the South African Government, against the disapproval of the greater part of world opinion, not to mention the United Nations and the International Court at The Hague which ruled that the South African acts were illegal.
When I was in Zambia in the 1970s, in Lusaka I met a number of the leaders of the SWAPO movement. I learnt something of the problems and their desperation about the cynical way in which their country was being used in a cat-and-mouse game. I was impressed by the quality and education of that small group of people and the reasonableness with which they faced what appeared to be a bleak future. I am pleased that Namibia is now a member of the Commonwealth. The action of the Commonwealth in paving the way for the admission of Namibia has been very encouraging, particularly with regard to education, both in Namibia itself and for those who are exiled from the country.
Before I finish I should like to welcome the aid which the British Government have put at the disposal of the Namibian state. It may not appear an enormous amount and we hope that it will be increased, but undoubtedly the quality of that aid will be excellent. We look forward to it continuing into a happy future. We wish the country well.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, all friends of Africa and of the Commonwealth will welcome the Bill and the evidence that it gives of Namibia's adherence to the Commonwealth. I remind the House that the Commonwealth offered membership to Namibia at a time when Namibia was still occupied by the South Africans but the Commonwealth was unable to help the Namibians to achieve the independence in which the country could make its choice.
It would be inappropriate if, in a bland welcome to the Bill today, we forgot the background to the independence of Namibia and its adherence to the Commonwealth and, in particular, the debt that we in this country have accumulated by our actions or lack

1095
of action over the past 40 years. My mind turns to the valiant activities of the late Reverend Michael Scott, who was the first public figure to take a continuous, stance on the matter. He attended the United Nations year after year on behalf of what was then known as South-West Africa. He was supported by and represented the people of what is now Namibia. In his lone stance he received some support from non-aligned nations but very little support from this country.
We should remember that it was South African occupation of the country and insistence on administration, despite the fact that the United Nations regularly passed resolutions calling on South Africa to withdraw from the territory, which provoked the war that broke out in 1966 and continued for the next 22 years. The International Court of Justice pronounced on the matter in 1971. With a curious parallel to the present situation in the world, the Security Council set May 1975 as the deadline for South African withdrawal. That deadline was not met. South Africans quite openly declared that they had no intention of meeting it. What did members of the United Nations and permanent members of the Security Council do about that open defiance? Nothing at all. In fact the following year, when a call was made for an arms embargo to enforce the decision of the Security Council, it was vetoed by the governments of France, the United States and the United Kingdom. How things have changed.
Despite the atrocity of the appalling massacre at Cassinga in 1978, when 750 Namibians in a refugee camp were slaughtered by the South African forces, still no action was taken. In the same year, Resolution 435, which became the basis of United Nations policy toward Namibia, was passed. What support did it receive from the members of the United Nations? There was a Security Council resolution calling for the withdrawal of South Africa and the setting up of a Namibian Council. Indeed, one of our own number until recently, the much beloved late Lord Caradon, was appointed as the commissioner for Namibia. He never arrived there.
What support was given to the Security Council, its resolutions and its policies at that time by the United Kingdom Government or members of the Security Council? A western contact group was set up. I met its members nearly 10 years ago in Lusaka. They wandered around year by year and quickly came under the domination of the United States representative. Nothing was done to put into action the resolution or any of the policies of the United Nations.
Meanwhile, throughout this period, uranium was being mined by Rio Tinto Zinc, based in this country, in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions. Diamonds were being pulled out of the ground and sold in defiance of United Nations resolutions. The seas around Namibia were being grossly overfished in defiance of United Nations resolutions. In this country we took a part in all those activities. To its credit the Commonwealth regularly supported Resolution 435 and regularly criticized
1096
those who were breaking United Nations provisions; but not with the support of Her Majesty's Government.
I should like to pay tribute to David Owen who, as Foreign Secretary in 1978, almost reached a diplomatic agreement. I never thought that there was any chance of going through with it: in any case he never had the chance because he was out of office at a very early stage of the negotiations. I pay tribute also to the work of the churches. I single out a much beloved Member of this House, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, together with his wife, who paid a number of uncomfortable and sometimes dangerous visits to Namibia. He produced brave reports of what was going on in the country.
That is the background, and that is the debt that we have piled up to the people of Namibia. It is good to recall that when agreement on a ceasefire eventually arose, the Commonwealth immediately played an active role by sending an observer team to supervise the elections in November 1989, as had been dome in Rhodesia. I mentioned the point in yesterday's debate. It did not just send an observer team; it also sent a technical team, which in some ways was even more important, from the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation. Two legal experts were provided to help work out a new constitution. Training was provided in setting up the foreign ministry and other advisers were supplied to modify and modernise the civil service. Perhaps of most importance was the help given to the Namibian extension unit, mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, to move back to Windhoek from its exile in Lusaka and Angola in 1990. That was a very important unit.
I was privileged to participate for a time in helping its training. It trained Namibian refugees to fit themselves to run an independent country, which is one, if not the most important, contribution that can be made from the outside to the growth, development and establishment of a new, independent nation. I am glad to know that the CFTC has continued to supply experts from Commonwealth countries to assist the Namibians in their nation-building.
I welcome the statement by the noble Earl about the work that has been done by the British to help training in both the police and the army. I regret that he could only announce the very meagre figure of £10 million, considering the debt I have outlined which we have built up to the people of Namibia—the amount of what one can only call loot, which has been extracted from that country ever since the war largely by the South Africans but with a great deal of British participation. I hope that the noble Earl will take the message from this House that £10 million is nothing like enough to repay the debt that we have built up.
Finally, I should like to reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs with regard to Walvis Bay. Walvis Bay has a very long history in the affairs of southern Africa, going back to the last century. Walvis Bay is absolutely crucial to the future economic health of Namibia. As my noble friend pointed out, that has been recognised by the United

1097
Nations. We are entitled to ask about the attitude of the British Government, as a member of the United Nations and a member of the Security Council. What policy are they following in insisting that United Nations support for the Namibian claim on Walvis Bay is pursued so that this new member of the Commonwealth is given a reasonable chance to build up its economic strength following the rape it has suffered over the past 40 years?
5.40 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that the Bill has received in your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said that it was a small but significant Bill. We agree about its great significance.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, spoke of the importance of Walvis Bay. It is worth recalling that in 1978 the United Kingdom voted in favour of Security Council Resolution 432 which states that Walvis Bay should be reintegrated into Namibia. As I said in our debate yesterday, we believe that this important issue is best resolved through negotiations between Namibia and South Africa. We believe that both the Namibian and South African governments are prepared to negotiate bilaterally.
It is also right to tell the House that the Namibian foreign minister has written to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and to the United States and German foreign ministers reserving the right to revert to the Security Council. We have replied commending bilateral negotiation but offering diplomatic support if necessary.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the importance of economic aid to Namibia. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was grateful for the contribution of Britain. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said that it was depressingly small. Let me repeat that Britain is producing a substantial amount of aid in various forms to Namibia. One must not forget also the contribution of the Community. In 1990, the Community draft budget has provided for help to Namibia of some £12.7 million. Within that there is a substantial contribution from Britain.
The noble Baroness asked about the least developed country status within the Community. I cannot tell her what it is at the moment. It is of course a matter for the Community to decide. Perhaps I may write to her on that point. I shall also write to her on the fourth point with regard to the CDC.
As to the economics of Namibia, the noble Baroness referred to poverty. It is worth saying a word about the external debt situation. Negotiations on that and other aspects of the financial and commercial relationship between independent Namibia and South Africa are now taking place. We must leave it to the independent Government of Namibia to decide how to settle those complex matters. However, I am sure that we all hope the outcome will provide a basis for a prosperous future for Namibia.
1098
The Government share the warm sentiments with which your Lordships applauded Namibia's entrance into the Commonwealth. I am glad that Namibia has so many friends in your Lordships' House. The Bill is a practical expression of our welcome of Namibia into the Commonwealth. I commend it to the House.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down will he clarify one point? He stated that the British Government have expressed willingness to give diplomatic assistance. I believe that those were the words he used. Does he mean diplomatic assistance to the Namibian Government in claiming Walvis Bay back under the United Nations resolution?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the words that I used—indeed I believe that I used them yesterday—were "diplomatic support". We have already voted in favour of Security Council Resolution 432. We stand by to help in whatever way we can to achieve a positive solution to the matter.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Education Support Grants Regulations 1990
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch rose Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these draft regulations provide for the payment of education support grants. They consolidate, with amendments, the previous 1984 regulations.
Before I explain how these new regulations differ from the old ones, it may help your Lordships if I set out some of the background and in particular the new arrangements for combining education support grants with local education authority training grants into a single co-ordinated grants programme.
When last year the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, introduced regulations to amend the previous education support grant regulations, he informed your Lordships that a scrutiny had been established under the auspices of the Prime Minister's efficiency unit to review the department's two main specific grants—education support grants and the local education authorities' training grants scheme. The scrutiny was asked to examine the administration of the two grants, to consider whether they were effective instruments for supporting the policy objectives they were intended to support, and to make recommendations for improvement.
That scrutiny reported in January. Its first conclusion was that the grants should continue. It found that the grants were broadly meeting their objectives and had exerted powerful influences for change. But the scrutiny also concluded that there was no longer a case for two separate grant systems. Instead it recommended the establishment of a unified

1099
scheme combining both grants. This was designed to improve co-ordination between training and other forms of grant support.
The reason for that is that the two schemes have increasingly covered similar ground. Both now have it as a key objective to help schools, colleges and local education authorities to implement the changes flowing from the Education Reform Act. For example, both provide funds to help put the national curriculum in place. But under current arrangements the training that is needed for the national curriculum is considered, and grants are paid, quite separately from the other forms of support that are needed for the national curriculum such as books, equipment and non-teaching staff. Both grants have also allocated funds increasingly according to formulae based on objective measures such as the number of pupils or schools in individual local education authorities rather than on the basis of competitive bids.
The Government therefore readily accepted that bringing the two grants together would make sense. Indeed the principle has received a general welcome as helping to make sure that available funds are used to best effect. The scrutiny report suggested that ideally new legislation might be introduced to provide for a single grants scheme. But it recognised that the prospect for early legislation was uncertain. Meanwhile, we shall continue to keep the two grants formally separate and paid under their respective statutes but administer them side by side so that we can gain the benefits of a co-ordinated approach. The combined programme is known as the grants for education support and training or GEST programme.
It is against that background that we have put before your Lordships new regulations governing education support grants. In practice, the regulations draw extensively on those previously in force. But they make several changes of substance. First, the schedule to the regulations allows for the various ESG activities within the proposed 1991–92 programme. It removes the activities specified in previous schedules which are coming to an end in 1990–91. It updates the descriptions of activities which began in previous years and are continuing into 1991–92; and it allows for the new activities which will begin in 1991–92. In particular, item 28 in the schedule covers the new activity which will support projects to improve the planning and co-ordination of provision for the under-fives.
Secondly, the regulations will enable the department to pay education support grant termly instead of quarterly as in the past. That brings ESGs into line with the existing practice for the training grants which have been paid on a termly basis for some time. It should help to cut down the administrative burden of the grants programme by allowing both grants to be claimed and paid at the same time.
Thirdly, the regulations give my right honourable friend powers to require information to verify that grant has been properly paid and to require LEAs to comply with requirements specified by my right honourable friend including requirements as to the repayment of grants. Both these provisions mirror
1100
requirements included in the parallel regulations governing the LEA training grants scheme. Perhaps I may assure noble Lords that the power in regulation 10 about complying with requirements is not for everyday use but is designed as a long-stop which will allow my right honourable friend to protect the taxpayer's investment. In particular, it is designed to allow him to require LEAs to repay an appropriate amount of grant when they sell assets bought with ESG funding. This is a standard requirement for grants.
In addition to these changes of substance we have taken the opportunity to bring the wording of the regulations as closely as possible into line with that of the LEA training grants scheme regulations to mirror the bringing together of the grants into a single programme.
Your Lordships may like to know more about how the combined 1991–92 programme will work. The size and pattern of the proposed programme was announced in July. We expect to support through grants total spending of £364 million. Of that, £215 million is provisionally attributed to education support grants and the remainder to training grants. But the precise sums paid under each set of regulations will be decided when all the grant allocations to LEAs for each activity within the programme have been settled.
Also in July the department issued a single draft circular to LEAs inviting them to submit bids for allocations under the combined programme. Although each activity has been separately identified as payable under ESG or training grant regulations, by grouping activities together the circular is designed to help local authorities develop more coherent responses which can treat training and other forms of support as parts of a single package. The department has now received authorities' bids and we are considering the final shape of the programme. We shall announce allocations to local authorities as soon as practicable, subject to these draft regulations receiving approval.
The Government's overriding priority for the 1991–92 programme is to help schools, colleges and LEAs to implement the education reforms. Consequently, of the £364 million total programme no less than £270 million is being targeted on different aspects of the reforms. As in previous years my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State consulted the local authority associations on the shape of the programme. Within the £270 million for the reforms some £170 million will be allocated for various elements of the national curriculum and collective worship. This includes, first, £35 million of support for implementing the new national curriculum assessment regime, helping LEAs administer the new arrangements, promote consistent assessment standards and give teachers and other staff the necessary training; secondly, £30 million of spending on information technology systems for teaching, with a particular focus on primary and special schools and on the support of children with communication difficulties; thirdly, £15 million of spending on extra

1101
books for the national curriculum; and fourthly, £16 million for other ESG support on materials and equipment for the national curriculum and the appointment of staff such as technicians to help implement it. A further £100 million will support projects to improve the management of schools and colleges primarily by helping LEAs implement schemes of local management. This includes expenditure on management training for staff, computerised management information systems and additional administrative support.
But, as in previous years, the programme will also support other priorities not directly related to the education reforms. There is additional support for projects to increase local recruitment of teachers, particularly former teachers and nature entrants to teaching. We shall continue to support projects in the areas of health education and school discipline. There will be a new activity to improve the planning and co-ordination and provision for the under-fives across the LEA and voluntary sectors. There will also be continuing support for a range of ESG activities in adult education including adult literacy, educational guidance and support for the Workers' Educational Association.
Thus far I have focused on the operation of the programme in England. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for the operation of education support grants in Wales. There too, ESGs are being combined with training grants in very much the same way as in England.
The programme in Wales will support expenditure of nearly £25 million in 1991–92. The activities to be supported closely mirror those in England in reflecting the priorities of the Education Reform Act. But in addition funds will be available to support Welsh in the national curriculum.
I believe that the value of the Government's specific grant programmes in education is widely acknowledged. The efficiency scrutiny report commented:
"The evidence we have received, from all sources, provides overwhelming support for the two schemes. Specific grants have funded important and beneficial developments which would not have happened otherwise".
It is always a pleasure to receive such a ringing endorsement. But there is more that we can do and I have tried to set out for your Lordships the approach that we are taking to ensure that ESG and training grant allocations become even more effective. The regulations currently before us will allow education support grants to continue to provide a vital margin of funding to help schools, colleges and LEAs make a real success of implementing the education reforms and to respond to other education priorities. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for taking time to explain the background to the currently complex situation in relation to grants for education support and training. I wish to make
1102
two or three general points before making two or three specific points. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of the queries and questions that I wish to put to her.
There is considerable and justified anxiety about the loss of local flexibility as a result of the new arrangements for education support grants and local education authority training grants. The Efficiency Scrutiny Study, to which the Minister referred, was undertaken last year. It recommended that the greater flexibility that was entailed in the training grants should be applied to education support grants. However, the reverse has happened; any streamlining of the system to try to bring the two closer together has resulted in less flexibility. That is a great pity and perhaps the Minister will comment upon it.
The scrutiny study suggested that the two schemes should be properly integrated and I wish to endorse its recommendation. However, it appears that the Government have gone only half way down that route. It now appears that as regards the timetable the schemes are being run together but essentially kept separate as regards funding and bidding. That means that local education authorities must prepare two separate bids at the same time. Therefore, there is no opportunity to take into account the outcome of one set of bids when constructing the other set and there is no opportunity for local authorities to try to obtain a balance between the two schemes.
The benefits of a complete merger of the programme as recommended by the scrutiny study will not materialise. Parallel running will not achieve all the benefits and instead we shall be left with a continuing set of administrative complications. I know that the Government will say, as the Minister has already said, that the legislative position prevents total merger. Novertheless, can she say what the Government intend to do about removing the legislative technicality which is preventing complete merger? If, as she said, it makes sense to bring the two grants together, why not do so? Surely there is not so much legislation around in this Session that a fairly minor piece of legislative adjustment cannot be undertaken.
A number of important items are listed in the schedule to the draft regulations. However, the overall funding for the grant is decreasing in real terms. I know that specific grants have always been somewhat controversial in the local education authority world because local authorities prefer not to be tied down by a range of specific grants. However, we may decide to introduce them for important aspects of education provision. As the Minister said, there is great emphasis in the list on the implementation of the national curriculum. There are other important items such as the teaching of mathematics in schools; science and technology teaching and learning in primary education; the training of school governors; the provision of health education, the development and use of information technology in our schools; and the provision of open learning centres for adults in order to provide tuition in literacy and numeracy. Those matters are all vitally important areas of our

1103
educational provision. Surely we should not cut funding on those matters. And yet, that is exactly what the Government are doing.
There is an increase of £8 million over the 1990–91 figure of £364 million; in other words, in cash terms that is an increase of just over 2 per cent. In real terms, that must be a cut of around 5 per cent. if we assume inflation at 7 per cent. When local education authority budgets are already so constrained, it seems to me very odd to make such a cut if the Government regard those items to be of great importance, as we have been told that they do.
Perhaps I may now turn to the more specific matters which I wish to raise. I was very glad to see that the management and appraisal of school teachers, including training for the appraisal of school teachers, is first on the list of items in this schedule. Clearly, that is a matter of high priority but I am puzzled as to why only £9 million has been allocated to such a high priority item. I believe that the £9 million is for pilot projects but perhaps the Minister can confirm that that is the case.
I am particularly puzzled because the new Secretary of State is now saying that appraisals should be compulsory in all authorities for all teachers. Does he mean that? If so, where is the money to come from? Why has not more money been allocated for that purpose? The national steering committee on teacher appraisal estimated that some £35 million to £40 million was needed. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten the House on that matter.
I also welcome very much the inclusion in the list of improvement of planning and co-ordination of educational provision for children under five by education authorities and other bodies. I hope that that will encourage those Tory authorities which are doing absolutely nothing to expand and develop provision for under-fives. I referred to that in our recent debate on education and I hope that the Government will start to make a serious effort on that vital stage of education.
I believe that that item allows for the training of non-teaching staff working with children under five, such as nursery assistants. That was not possible under the training grant scheme which specified the training of teachers only. That must be welcomed. It is something for which the local authorities and teachers' unions have been asking, and I must compliment the Government on listening for a change. However, can the Minister explain the basis of the allocation of money under this item? Is it based on population figures in the authorities or on the number of children under five who are in the education system?
Last year there was a great deal of anxiety in the Workers' Educational Association about the transfer of funding from the association to the education support grants mechanism. Can the Minister confirm that the new method of funding is now working to the satisfaction of the Workers' Educational Association,
1104
to the satisfaction of local authorities and without any loss of funding to the WEA, particularly in those areas where WEA provision is quite extensive?
Finally, can the Minister explain why the Government have rejected the scrutiny report's recommendations on allowing virement between the various items which are listed under the education support grant regulations? Circumstances can change quite quickly and when one takes into account that bids are made over a six to 12-month period before the money is spent, it would do a great deal to cut down potential waste and bureaucracy if virement was allowed as the scrutiny report recommended. That would be very much welcomed by the local education authorities, yet it would still mean that money was being spent on the 28 items which the Government listed as of sufficient priority to justify those specific grants.
6 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to thank the Minister for her clear exposition of the changes which have been made. We notice that the ESG and local education authority training grant schemes are to be run in parallel. I must echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said. I believe that the local education authorities are concerned that they have lost the flexibility which they had when the training grant schemes were open to them for suggestion and they could work out their own projects, submit them for approval and go ahead with them. They are now confined to specific projects. That does not permit a local initiative. If we approve the existing scheme whereby education is delivered by local authorities, then they should not have their opportunities for initiative reduced in that way by central authority.
All the activities named in the new regulations are thoroughly worthwhile. However, the original idea of the 1984 Act was that money would be forthcoming from central government for specific projects on specific aspects of education. One wonders whether some of the activities named in that list can come under that heading. I am thinking of such matters as the teaching of mathematics in schools. Can the Minister explain in what way that is a specific project? The teaching of mathematics in schools is and should be carried out in any case. In what way is that an object of an education support grant? The same applies to the training of teachers in schools to improve pupils' use and understanding of the English language. Surely that too is part of the education service of the country. It does not seem to be legitimate that that should be a specific purpose of the education support grants.
I mention also a difficulty which the local authorities have as regards timing. Most of these ideas are floated by the Government in the spring. They have to be considered by local authorities during the summer and autumn. Bids must then be submitted. The work done in planning the projects and putting in the bids, which involves time and money, may then be wasted because those projects may be entirely rejected

1105
or under-funded. It is a recurrent complaint by local authorities that that can happen. There is a loss of time, money and labour because of that.
I should be interested to know if the Minister can give me any idea of the take up of some of the excellent suggestions. What sort of progress is made as regards projects to meet the educational needs of persons from ethnic minorities? Has there been a worthwhile take up and successful progress as regards the promoting of social responsibility in children? I am thinking also of item 21 —that is, the provision of open learning centres for adults in literacy, numeracy and such skills, the implementation of provision for pupils whose behaviour poses difficulties and action to improve rates of attendance in schools. Those matters are all terribly important. One wonders what success there has been and what has been the take up.
I too hope that the schemes will be merged, and that in doing so there will be full consultation with local authorities so that whatever scheme is thought of and whatever legislation is introduced will be satisfactory to all. At the moment there are anomalies and sources of inefficiency which the whole of the new scheme is designed to prevent.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like briefly to reinforce what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, about virement. It is maddening that the allocation of money, which is decided in advance of the grants, is rigid. Anyone who has had the job of administering moneys from central government knows that over time the best use of that money changes. To be stuck with the exact allocation of money that has been incorporated in the budget is extremely uneconomic. It produces very bad results and wastes money.
This plea for more virement—I know I am crying for the moon but that is what I shall do—refers to virement not simply to the different kinds of work to be done using the money but also to what happens at the end of the year. The situation is absurd. We all know that at the end of the year the people who received a grant say that they have not spent it, and if they do not do so they will not receive as much money the following year. Therefore they feel they must rush out and spend it. That is an appalling waste of money. It leads to bad administration. If there could be greater flexibility at local level both between categories of work to be done and overtime it would lead to much better results and save money.
That is not the point I primarily wished to make. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in the account she gave us of these grants spoke briefly on allocations for adult education. We who are connected with adult education know that it is the Cinderella of the education services. There is no statutory obligation on local authorities to fund adult education. When they are hard up the temptation is not to fund it. That is happening at a time when adult education needs to expand rather than contract for economic reasons as well as social reasons.
1106
I did not fully understand what was implied in what the noble Baroness said. If there is money in the schemes for adult education, will it be in some way ring fenced so that the adult education colleges actually receive the money? If it is not, and the money goes into the general pool, the temptation will always be to use it for something else. Can the Minister tell us what is intended by her reference to adult education? I should like to know how much will be expected, but the Minister probably cannot answer that. What rights over the money will the adult education colleges have?
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this was a short but useful debate. There has been a wide measure of support for the education support grants programme. Everyone will have their own view of the real priorities. It would always be nice to have more money to do things. Nonetheless, it is common ground that ESGs and the parallel training grants are having a beneficial impact and provide a key margin of funds to help ensure that the education service can respond to changing needs.
It may be easier if I start with the last matter and address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on adult education. My understanding in regard to ESGs and training grants is that when the bid is made for them they are specifically spent consistent with the details set out in the bid. It relates to the virement point, to which I shall turn in a moment. On the one hand, the noble Baroness was saying spend it for the purpose for which the bid was made but then add flexibility to allow virement when it makes sense.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I only want virement for the concerns in which I am particularly interested.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall allow that comment to pass.
Perhaps I may deal with some of the points made in the debate, with the caveat that should I omit anything I shall write to the noble Baronesses and the noble Lord. The first point made by the noble Baroness in her introduction was: why is there less flexibility at local level? That is an issue which was considered very carefully. We recognise that the LEAs use the local priority area to fund various forms of training not covered by nationally specified priorities and that its withdrawal would require some reordering.
The heart of the matter is that the GEST funds are limited. The Government must take a view on the best way of using them and the pattern of activities which will obtain best value for money. Schools in particular have a lot of work to do to implement the education reforms. Our judgment was that the overriding priority for the 1991–92 programme must have help to implement that work. Within the limited funds available it was not possible both to continue with local priority area funding and to fund at the same time at the appropriate level all the national priorities which need support; for example, information

1107
technology equipment, information systems, books and materials, extra administrative staff, extra support staff, and so on.
It is a question of judging priorities. We recognise that some people may judge differently. However, I make no apology for the fact that the Government's judgment was that it would be absurd not to use all the levers at their disposal to give schools all possible help to implement the reforms.
There is a partial replacement for the local discretion in the new activity within the 1991–92 GEST programme which will support the overhead costs of managing INSET and spending on non-subject specific training. For 1991–92 that activity, which is to be paid for under the LEATGS, not the education support grants regulations, is much smaller than the former LPA. But we said that its scale and effectiveness will be reviewed for next year.
Finally, it is important to keep the figures in perspective. The combined GEST programme will account for some 2 per cent. of education's share of the 1991–92 local authority proposed grant settlement. While I recognise that resources are not unlimited it remains true that LEAs, schools and colleges are free to add to their GEST allocations to support particular training to which they wish to give priority. The noble Baroness referred to it being a cut in real terms. It is important to set it against the spending on education as a whole. In real terms an increase of more than 40 per cent. in spending per pupil in primary and secondary schools has taken place between 1979 and 1989. The 1990–91 local authority grant settlement allows for local education authorities in England to spend £15 billion on education, which is over 9 per cent. higher than the comparable figure for 1989–90. The proposals for local authority grant settlements in 1991–92 will allow English LEAs to spend £17.5 billion on education. That will represent a 16 per cent. increase over this year's total.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may pick up what she just said. Giving the overall per pupil increases in spending over the past decade is hardly relevant to this argument. If it is indeed the case that only 2 per cent. of the share of total LEA spending is allocated through this mechanism, it is particularly odd that the proportion should actually be reduced when the Government have a number of priorities that they have allocated; and many are priorities that we on this side of the House would welcome. I do not feel that I have had an adequate explanation of why there has been a cut in real terms for ESG.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the point I am making is that overall expenditure has gone up by 9 per cent. this year, and will go up by 16 per cent. next year for education spending. The local authority expenditure prescribed nationally by the Government as a proportion has gone down. In other words, the flexibility for local determination has been increased by the reduction in national prescription.
Another point raised by the noble Baroness related to why we did not complete the merger. That was also
1108
mentioned by other noble Lords. I said in my initial speech that one difficulty was the legislative one. I know that the noble Baroness asked why we did not bring forward a minor Bill. We took advice on the scrutiny suggestion that the combined programme might be paid wholly under ESG legislation. We were advised that it would not be acceptable in terms of legal propriety. Given that Parliament enacted in the Education Act 1986 that there should be grants specifically to support training, the advice we received was that it would not be proper to let that statute lie fallow and pay training grants under the ESG legislation.
The scrutiny report recommendation for new legislation is the preferred option, not only of the report but of the Government themselves. I can promise the noble Baroness that the position will be kept under review. In the meantime, rather than delay bringing these two grants together we have set in train the arrangement as set out in my original speech.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, also referred to funding. Again, I think I probably addressed that point earlier. I am measuring ESG and training funds against the education funds as a whole. The noble Baroness also asked about the basis on which we are determining ESG funding for under-fives. The ESG element of the under-five activity is being distributed to give an equal share to all local education authorities. Given what the noble Baroness said in her speech, I believe that she may actually welcome that. The training element is based on the number of pupils in nursery and primary schools.
The next point is that regarding teacher appraisal. The Government's view is that appraisal for school teachers can assist teachers to realise their potential and to carry out their duties more effectively. In September my right honourable friend the former Secretary of State issued for consultation his proposals for an appraisal scheme under which employers would have been left to judge for themselves whether to introduce appraisals. However, employers would have been able to require teachers to participate if they wished to implement that scheme.
My right honourable friend the new Secretary of State is currently considering the whole question of how best we can move forward in the light of the consultation responses that we receive. The noble Baroness is right to have exposed his current thinking on that subject, but I must say in response that the matter is being considered. The resource implications of various options will have to be considered, but no final decisions have been made. In the meantime, the appraisal moneys will be given to local education authorities on the basis of their bids and the local authorities voluntarily entering into those agreements.
I promised the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that I would deal with the point she raised about virement. The virement procedures under the LEA training grants have caused considerable problems in relation to the auditing of expenditure. Auditors find themselves unable to keep track of changes resulting from virement. Instead, we have invited LEAs, in putting to the department their bids for allocations for

1109
relevant activities, to say if they want to switch the money from one area to another; for example, from training into education support grant and vice versa. We would try to accommodate that. We believe that the new arrangements will allow LEAs sufficient scope to transfer funds. That links with the original point that when a bid is made specifically to do something, the general expectation is that that is what the money will be spent on. If voluntary virement takes place in any sense other than it being flagged up at the outset when the bid is made, then it is difficult to make sure that the money is spent for the purpose for which it was bid.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I must register a protest. The change is made for administrative convenience and not in order to achieve the best possible educational results. We should not organise matters for the convenience of civil servants who administer them. We must run them to get the best schools and colleges that we can. If there are difficulties for the auditors, that is just too bad.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I said earlier that the proportion of these moneys is 2 per cent. of the budget overall. I believe I have answered the criticism that the percentage is reducing. It is because local authorities are being given greater discretion over the moneys that they are spending. That 2 per cent. is specifically set aside for the Government to have their national priorities met and to assist local education authorities to implement, as current thinking goes, the national curriculum and the measures in the Education Reform Act.
We are saying that as far as possible we want the moneys to be spent on the purposes for which they are bid. One of the duties of the auditor will be to make sure that that happens. If the moneys are vired and there is no control over what has happened to moneys at local level, difficulties arise. Our concern is not to make the position administratively tidy, and it is certainly not to make things easier for the auditors, but to make sure that the money goes to meet the Government's national priorities and to benefit local authorities who implement the measures of the Education Reform Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred to the WEA. The new arrangement will provide opportunities for the development of partnerships and collaborative styles of working between the local education authorities and the WEA. That has been evident from information supplied in local authority bids for 1991–92. I can say that the WEA activity is a success and the signs are that it is. We had an excellent response from LEAs bidding for funds for this year's programme. We have also had a very good response this year and will be monitoring the impact of the scheme as it operates.
I have not answered all the questions raised in this debate. If I have missed an important point I shall write to the noble Baroness or noble Lord concerned. Perhaps they will be good enough to remind me of any specific points to which replies are required. I hope
1110
that I have responded to the main issues raised. I believe that the ESG activities which my right honourable friend proposes as part of the combined grant programme for 1991–92 will provide valuable assistance to local education authorities. In particular, they will help schools which are already working hard to make a success of the education reforms to carry on their good work. The regulations we have discussed today will enable us to build on previous successes and to establish new and better arrangements for a co-ordinated grants programme. I commend the regulations to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1990
6.27 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th October be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1989–90].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I understand that it will be convenient to discuss the Scottish regulations at the same time.
These two sets of regulations, which have already been considered in another place, are laid under the powers respectively in Section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 87 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. They amend regulations introduced in April this year for Scotland and, for England and Wales, regulations approved by this House and another place some 20 months ago which came into effect in mid-March 1989.
The main change introduced by these 1990 regulations is to provide for a general increase in the level of fees for planning applications. We have also taken the opportunity to make some very minor amendments to clarify the text of the regulations. Fees for planning applications were first introduced in 1981. Since then they have represented a contribution to the costs which the local planning authority incur in handling planning applications and reaching a decision. Applicants are charged according to the nature of the development proposed, and its size where that is relevant.
During the debates on the 1985 and 1987 amending regulations the Government's stated objective was that fees for planning applications should move to a level where they recovered about 50 per cent. of local authorities' development control costs. The 1989 regulations provided for an increase in fees of 15 per cent. across the board and the Scottish regulations introduced earlier this year made a 20 per cent. increase. Allowing for those increases, and for the steadily increasing volume of planning applications received by local authorities in recent years, we estimate that last year, 1989–90, fees recovered

1111
approximately 52 per cent. of local authorities' costs in England, and a rather lower proportion north of the Border.
The two sets of regulations now before the House provide for an across-the-board increase in fees of around 20 per cent. Subject to approval, the new fees scale should come into operation next month. The overall effect of the new fees will be to restore cost recovery to around the 50 per cent. level in England and Wales and to raise it to approaching that level in Scotland.
The House will be aware that, as proposed in the consultation paper Efficient Planning, published last year, the Government also intend that planning application fees should eventually cover 100 per cent. of local authorities' development control costs. The Minister for Housing and Planning announced in another place on 25th July that we intend to invite your Lordships' House and another place to approve further regulations over the next several years to raise fees progressively in order to achieve 100 per cent. recovery. That is also the target in Scotland.
In Efficient Planning the Government also proposed to simplify the fee regulations in England and Wales, which we believe are excessively complicated. We intend to consult publicly about this before too long.
Under the present proposals in England and Wales the basic units of fees will rise from £76 to £92, and from £38 to £46. A full application to build dwellinghouses, for example, will be subject to a charge of £92 per dwellinghouse. An outline application will be charged £92 per 0·1 hectare of site area.
The householders who wishes to extend his house will—assuming he has to obtain specific planning permission—have to pay a fee of £46, instead of £38. Applications to erect non-residential buildings, such as offices or factories, will incur a fee of £92 instead of £76, per 75 square metres of floorspace, and so on throughout the fees scale. The maximum fee in each category with a sliding scale will also be increased pro rata by around 20 per cent. This means that, for example, the maximum fee for a factory or office development will rise from £3,800 to £4,600, and the maximum fee for an application to win or work minerals from £5,700 to £6,900. Slightly lower rates of fee levels will apply in Scotland.
As I have indicated, the remaining changes we propose to make to the regulations are minor, and amount to little more than clarifying the text of the existing regulations in the light of our further experience of their operation. The Government believe that it is a sound principle that those who use and potentially benefit from specific administrative processes should meet their cost. I believe there can be no doubt that, even after taking into account the increase in fees proposed in the regulations before the House, fees for planning applications will in general continue to be modest in relations to the overall cost of
1112
the development which is the subject of the application. I commend the 1990 regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th October be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1989–90].—(Baroness Blatch.)
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her exposition of these two regulations. They are not enormously complicated. The issue behind them is still considerably controversial. It is no secret that when fees for planning applications were first introduced in 1981 we on these Benches were not in favour of them. However, a great many things have changed since then, notably the squeeze on local authority expenditure and the introduction of the poll tax. In the light of the experience of government control of local authority finances (because that is the word we must use) over the past eight or nine years, our opposition to fees has diminished to the point of being eliminated.
In fact, when the Government state that it is their intention to increase the fee level to cover 100 per cent. of local authority costs over a period of years, I would go so far as to say that we are not proposing to object to that change. However, there are difficulties which should not be passed over in silence. Even with these regulations there have been protests which have no doubt gone directly to the Government from such bodies as the Federation of Master Builders which fears that an increase of 20 per cent. in application fees in another burden for the building and construction industry at a time when it is being hit harder by recession than at almost any time I can remember.
We must take these concerns seriously and recognise that when the construction industry is in the parlous state which now affects it, there is a case for tempering the wind to the shorn lamb. We must also consider whether it is right to continue to increase fees when the planning system itself is still subject to legal constraints which make it more expensive than it should otherwise be. However, I am pleased that these regulations are coming forward in the week when we have been considering the Planning and Compensation Bill which the Minister will acknowledge we broadly welcome.
The improvements especially in the enforcement proceedings proposed in that Bill will go some way towards increasing the efficiency of the planning system. Those improvements should enable local planning authorities to cut some costs and therefore decrease the figure which will be arrived at ultimately when 100 per cent. of the costs of applications is covered by fees. These are difficult matters. They are not issues about which anyone can be wholehearted. If the Government take our approval for these increases in planning application fees as general approval for a move towards a fee-based local authority service, they would be quite wrong. That is not our intention. It is not something that we wish to see. The universal provision of most local authority services is a prize for

1113
which we would fight hard. Planning application fees, coming as they do from those who have specific economic reasons for using local authority time, are a different matter. In this case we think it is proper that these regulations should proceed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his comments and his conversion to the recovery of costs scheme. I note his reluctance and the reasons why he takes that view. The noble Lord spoke about the parlous state of the construction industry and the difficulties that it is having at this time. We are talking about the costs being met only when application is being submitted. We are talking about the part of the construction industry which is still in work and managing to submit applications.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must say that is a bit rich! One of the reasons why there will be fewer applications for planning permission is that the total costs of construction are greater. Those costs include, even though to a small extent, the costs of planning applications. The Minister cannot get away with a policy of divide and rule concerning the construction industry.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has said. I was saying that costs are only awarded when an application is made. We are talking about that part of the construction industry which is still submitting applications. We all wish that the construction industry was more buoyant at the moment. The noble Lord mentioned the degrees by which we are increasing the fees and that it was done specifically in order to help the construction industry.
I agree with the point he made that there is downward pressure on the local authorities to improve the planning system. The Planning and Compensation Bill will help a little in that respect. The more efficient the planning system itself becomes the less money that we shall need to recover from those who present planning applications. The Government are always ready to receive any suggestions for improvements to the fees scheme although we would prefer to avoid making it more complex. As I have said, we are considering ways of simplifying the scheme. I hope that sensible ideas to improve the fees scheme will continue to come to us from all those with an interest in the planning system.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1990
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th October be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1989–90].—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am marginally puzzled by this matter. The increase proposed in Scotland is less than that proposed in
1114
England yet it is expected that this will result in a higher proportion of the development costs in Scotland being covered by fees. Is it that the planning system in Scotland is so much more effective than the system in England and Wales?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall give a snap answer and say that it is because the Scottish system is more efficient, but I do not know the answer to that question. I shall find out and write to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Order 1990
6.40 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order amends the Merchant Shipping (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Order 1987, which enabled regulations to be made to give effect to Annex II to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973. The order will empower the Secretary of State to amend these regulations so as to incorporate updated requirements which have been adopted by the International Maritime Organisation. It will also empower the Secretary of State to make regulations to give effect to Annex III to the convention.
I should perhaps explain that the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships—better known as the MARPOL Convention—is the principal international instrument for controlling pollution from ships. It contains five annexes dealing with oil, noxious liquid substances in bulk, packaged dangerous goods, sewage and garbage. It is revised by the International Maritime Organisation as the circumstances dictate, and this enables its provisions to keep up with newer practices and reflect current public concerns. The convention commands wide international support and it is only through its regulations that we can improve the cleanliness of the seas.
Annex II to the MARPOL Convention sets out the measures for preventing the pollution of the sea from noxious liquid substances in bulk. It categorises these substances into four groups according to their potential for pollution, prescribing for each category how it should be controlled and monitored. The list of substances is continuously assessed by internationally recognised experts and, in the light of discussion in the International Maritime Organisation, the severity rating of some substances is altered and new substances are added to the list.
Annex III to the convention deals with the prevention of pollution by marine pollutants carried in packaged form. It has been decided by the International Maritime Organisation that for convenience and good order Annex III should be implemented by incorporation into the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code. This code was

1115
developed for substances which are dangerous, rather than for pollutants. But the general precautions that need to be observed—whether a substance is dangerous or is a pollutant—are the same and indeed in transporting these substances on board ship the trade does not differentiate between the two. A completely new edition of the code has therefore been developed by the International Maritime Organisation which now incorporates pollutants and applies to them for the first time requirements on packaging, marking and labelling, documentation, stowage and segregation.
Annex III, though ratified by the United Kingdom as long ago as 27th May 1986, is not in force internationally because the number of ratifications by member governments of the International Maritime Organisation is just short of that necessary to bring it into effect. The delay is a cause for concern. The International Maritime Organisation has urged member states to implement the annex in advance of it coming into force internationally and Ministers at tending the North Sea Conference in March of this year agreed to give effect to the new edition of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code by 1st January 1991.
Regulations made under this order are being prepared to give effect to Annex III. They will incorporate broadly the same duties and responsibilities as are to be found in the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods) Regulations. They will include a variety of ancillary provisions and will apply not only to ships registered in the United Kingdom but also to foreign ships while they are in the United Kingdom's territorial waters.
I feel sure that the House will appreciate the need for this order, which is intended to help make cleaner the seas and oceans around the world. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee] —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the manner in which he introduced the order. I welcome the order very much, although one notes with some concern the dilatory process of the entry into force of so many international agreements in this field. Usually such agreements are motivated by a disaster. How much preferable it would be if the international community began to anticipate environmental problems rather than simply react to them in a costly way later on.
It has, of course, been through the International Maritime Organisation that substantial progress has been made in developing international efforts to prevent pollution of the sea from oil. But marine casualties like the "Torrey Canyon", the "Argo Merchant" and the "Amoco Cadiz" have played a major role in improving international regimes to control oil pollution. More recently the "Exxon Valdez" catastrophe on 24th March 1989, with its resultant disastrous oil spill, focused worldwide
1116
attention on the massive resources required to combat a large spill, particularly in a sensitive and sometimes hostile environment.
We are talking in a sense of a package that arises under the MARPOL convention. An exception to the delays has occurred this very day. I understand that the plenary session of the International Conference on Oil Preparedness and Response at the International Maritime Organisation adopted a convention which, when it comes into operation, will fill a major gap in the international framework of treaties dealing with marine pollution. That in itself is one of the annexes to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. By IMO standards it is something of a record that some 90 governments participated in the conference leading to the adoption of the convention. It was only in October 1989 that the IMO assembly adopted a resolution directing the IMO to convene an international conference on the issue. It is remarkable that the convention has emerged in just over a year. It would be a great example to others as well as being in the best interests of the United Kingdom if the Minister could indicate today that the Government propose to ratify the convention as rapidly as possible, so helping to facilitate its swift implementation.
Having said that, the customary situation is to wait for years to see conventions of this kind secure the necessary number of signatures and ratifications to bring them into effect. And having hailed the fact that today there seems to be something quite different, one has to remember that it was in 1973 that MARPOL was hailed as a signal achievement, regulating as it did for the very first time all aspects of ship generated pollution. Notwithstanding that, some of the five annexes, including Annexes II and III on which this order is based, are not yet in force internationally. That is a matter for great regret. Consequently, I wish to take this opportunity to stress that the United Kingdom and our European Community partners need to continue to exercise considerable diplomatic pressure on other countries to ratify IMO conventions far more expeditiously. I wonder whether the Minister would like to say a word or two about that.
As a result of the slowness in preparing for diplomatic conferences which are designed to adopt international law, and with the further delay which always follows in relation to their entry into force, the international community should not blind itself to the principal causes of marine pollution. These are much less ship based and much more land based. We support wholeheartedly the powerful efforts that have been made by the IMO over so many years to regulate various aspects of vessel-source pollution. Indeed, as a Minister, I was a great admirer of the IMO and have continued to be so since. We need to recognise that worldwide pollution from that source accounts for only about 10 per cent. of maritime pollution. The figure comes from a report by the Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution, which brings together scientists from the United Nations and various United Nations agencies.

1117
The fact remains that there is little in international law that attempts to redress the problem of land based sources of pollution. The report asserts that a wide range of land activities, either directly or via rivers and the atmosphere, contribute far more than sea-borne activities. Pollution is not confined to the Continental Shelf. Coastal waters are most at risk from the destruction of habitats, microbial contamination of seafood and beaches and, indeed, from fouling in general. That makes it clear that we need to try to encourage much greater respect for quick action by the IMO and by other environmental organisations. We can only proceed on the basis of international co-operation in facing so many of these problems.
I hope that the Government will put full force behind securing such objectives. Important through the order is—and it is important—it must be viewed against the wider perspectives which I have raised. It is to be hoped that the Government will use their best endeavours. I join the Minister in commending the order to the House.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for welcoming the order. I too welcome the conclusions of the oil pollution preparedness and response conference. We shall of course have to study and consult on the convention and naturally we shall ratify it as soon as possible if it is seen as desirable to do so. As I said in my opening remarks, we have a very good record in ratifying IMO conventions.
In talking about this particular MARPOL convention, I believe that the noble Lord said that Annex II is not yet in force. If my assumption is correct, I must point out to him that he is mistaken. That annex came into force in 1987. Annex III which is also dealt with by the order is, however, not yet in force. We hope that it soon will be. It has at present been ratified by 40 states but has not yet achieved the 50 per cent. tonnage which is required. I understand that legislative time is being urgently sought in the United States and that if that is successful it would be sufficient to overcome the impediment of ratification. I hope, therefore, that we shall see the annex coming into force before very long. I agree with the noble Lord that we need to make further progress. We shall of course continue to do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Charities: European Policy
6.52 p.m.
The Earl of kinnoull The Earl of kinnoull rose To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to ensure that charities in Britain will be able to play a full role in Europe and that a unified policy is adopted not only in the European Community but also including a wider Europe.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Business of the House today has covered a good range of subjects and perhaps charities is a worthy subject with which to conclude. I am most grateful to those who have
1118
indicated their intention to take part in the debate this evening. There is first the noble Lord, Lord Meston, whose father I believe was a strong charitable man, and we shall also hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, whose charitable work has few equals; her husband's work may match hers, but very few other people can equal her great success in the field. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, will also be speaking on the subject. She will be giving her second performance today. I am sure it will prove to a tour de force.
I am sure too that my noble friend will understand that, although the Question on the Order Paper may look obtuse, it has a very real relevance as we approach 1992. The British charitable movement is one of the proudest cultural jewels which we bring to the European table. No one needs reminding of how the farsighted and generous businessman of the early Tudor days set up trusts for the poor and needy, and indeed for education, and how those trusts were enshrined in the statute of Queen Elizabeth I in 1601; nor of how today our charities range from local and national organisations to the great international charities, from the mighty Oxfam and the very successful Save the Children Fund to the medical bodies whose researchers carry out such great work. There is also the work carried out in animal welfare, which forms a very active section of charitable activity all over the world. All these need to raise huge sums of money annually from generous individuals, from companies and of course from institutions.
No one in the House needs reminding that the charities in Britain are among the biggest gross businesses or industries which we have. I believe that 165,000 new charities were registered last year—some, of course, giving a certain sense of duplication. However, all are administered with care and efficiency by the Charity Commission, which is a small dedicated body of civil servants with little more than 400 people to carry out its work.
One may perhaps ask what is the fuss and purpose behind the Question. It has nothing to do with the White Paper on charities which was published by the Government a few years ago, because that did not mention Europe. I find that fact somewhat amazing and worrying. The purpose underlying the Question is that as we approach 1992 there is developing in Brussels a dangerous back of awareness about how the charitable system in Britain works. That is mainly because 10 of the 12 countries of the Community have a much narrower system. Therefore, any proposals to harmonise charities in Europe could prove harmful to the system in this country unless more is done to explain the British case and indeed our system.
There are two recent examples which will perhaps illustrate the point that I am trying to make. They cause small pinpricks of worry, but those worries are genuine. There was a case involving teddy bears. For many years they were hand made by volunteers for small charities and they created a most valuable income. However, a directive issued by the Community effectively put a stop to that kind of income and to such endeavours. There was also the

1119
case of the minibus. This is a vital source of transport to charities which help the handicapped and the elderly. Again, new rules issued by the Commission meant that drivers were apparently not competent to work for charities and so yet another considerable problem was caused. Those are small problems but I believe they ring warning bells about what will happen when the commissioners seek to harmonise—to use that terrible word—charities in Europe in 1992.
As I tried to explain, there is a large gap between what charities stand for in the 10 countries of the Community and what they stand for in Britain and Ireland. The British system, with its legal framework, its vigour and its inventiveness, is admired in Europe by those who know what it achieves. I believe that we can bring a great asset to the Community by way of this movement. It could prove to be the Community model. However, to achieve this we need a positive approach from Her Majesty's Government to educate the thinking of the Commission, of the directors general and of the commissioners. But we appear to be running out of time.
Certain dangers which have appeared on the horizon have been identified by the Charity Commission. I give praise to the commission and to its able chairman, Mr. Robin Guthrie. The main danger centres around the proposed interpretation of Article 58(2) of the Treaty of Rome. That proposal would give a more narrow interpretation not affecting the 10 member states which could lead to a very large number of large British charities falling outside the umbrella of comfort secured by Section 58, with quite damaging consequences. It could affect such charities as bible societies, museums, fee-paying schools and even the National Trust.
Therefore, what is the European Commission saying about the situation? Herr Heinrich von Moltke of Directorate General XXIII Enterprise Policy, Commerce, Tourism and Social Economy is of course sympathetic. He does not seek to be hostile. He states that the Commission's objective is to include all associations under the Economique Sociale so that they enjoy the benefits of the European single market.
The Commission sees the need to create a new European charitable statute so that a charity can operate anywhere in the Community but be liable to the laws of the parent country. That seems to be an encouraging step forward. When my noble friend replies, perhaps he will tell us whether the Government support that suggestion.
The Government need now to take positive action—a pro-active policy—and a useful start would be to second an expert from London to Brussels to advise the Commission and to help any British charities which seek advice. We should have a booklet, which we do not have at the moment, to explain how the 12 countries operate charities. We should be drafting suitable amendments to the Article 58(2) proposals while they are still at the consultative stage.
All those actions need to be taken now. I hope that my noble friend's brief is encouraging and positive. The question relates to a wider Europe. I am thinking
1120
of what assistance and support the Council of Europe can give and what role it can play. The secretariat in Strasbourg is keen to promote charity support in a wider Europe beyond the Community. I hope that my noble friend will be able to enlighten us on current government thinking and on whether they will set up discussions with the Council of Europe.
No opportunity should be lost to remind Her Majesty's Government of the acute anxiety felt by charities which benefit from the VAT concession. There is deep concern that with any 1992 harmonisation those concessions may be sacrificed for the sake of achieving a wider goal.
My noble friend would do a great service tonight if he were to reaffirm that the Government have no intention of penalising such charities. For example, the RNLI would lose £3 million a year on the concession it enjoys on the purchase of boats, launch equipment and slipways. That of course is only a single charity. There are many more with stronger arguments to make. I hope that my noble friend will use firm and resolute words to remove any lingering doubts on the issue.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, this is an opportune moment for the Question to be raised. There was nothing obtuse about what the noble Earl said or in his valuable suggestions. It has become a matter of concern that the European Commission is preparing to bring charities—that is to say, the non-profit making voluntary sector—within the ambit of the Treaty of Rome. I question the appropriateness of bringing British and Irish charities under the unfamiliar regulatory control of what is essentially an economic community.
I claim little knowledge of and no expertise in European law, but I am aware, and presume that the Government are aware, that there is a genuine question about the legality of the proposals. Article 58 of the treaty seems clearly to exclude non-profit making organisations. Autonomous British and Irish charities are different creatures from the nearest equivalents elsewhere in Europe, such as the French co-operatives and other institutions which can and do undertake commercial activity for its own sake.
To include our charities would seem to depend upon a strained interpretation of Article 58. Given the real doubts about the position, surely the legality should be tested before the European Court before matters go any further. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how far harmonisation measures have gone and whether the Government are concerned about any such measures being prepared in advance of an authoritative judicial interpretation.
The Question posed by the noble Earl is expressed in a positive fashion, and he made some positive suggestions. The matters that I have raised may suggest a negative point of view. I do not intend to be insular about this matter. It is for charities themselves to assess the benefits and disadvantages of what is under consideration and of their future in a European context with suitable assistance from central

1121
government and the Charity Commission. There clearly is concern that the valuable and hard-won VAT relief will be sacrificed to European harmonisation. I end where the noble Earl ended, by asking: what is being done and what can be done to protect the charities' zero-rated concessions?
7.6 p.m.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, I am especially grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for bringing this serious matter to our attention. We are working against the clock because by 1991–92 we, the charities in Britain, may find ourselves being told that decisions have already been taken. As your Lordships are aware, Britain and Ireland have the largest number of charities in Europe. Many are unique in what they do and in the countless ways they work to relieve human suffering.
We have a long tradition going back over the centuries and we must surely be safeguarded. It is an appalling and frightening thought that we may receive orders from the Commission in Brussels. I refer as an example to VAT on donated gifts sold in the shops that bear my name. The shops aim to keep a high standard of appearance. They have four broad functions: first, to raise desperately needed funds for the foundation's work; secondly, to make better known the needs of the sick and handicapped of all age groups in Britain and overseas; thirdly, to bring together people from all walks of life; and, fourthly, to serve the local community.
The shops are the life-blood of the foundation in all aspects of its work, especially as we receive so little in government grants. For instance, it costs over £500 a week to nurse and care for a sick or handicapped individual. The foundation is lucky to receive merely £245 per week per patient on average.
I speak with some feeling on the subject, because many other countries have different traditions with charities. They also operate differently. In Germany and, I believe, in Austria, after the Weimar Republic collapsed in Germany and the Nazis took over, all forms of charities were forbidden. Today, in 1990, they have still only five to seven main charities. Their income is from individuals who pay a tax through their pay packets or pensions towards the church charity or one of the other five or six charities. They do not have our tradition of different forms of fund raising. Donations come almost entirely from that tax. That is just one example of how differently we operate here. I know from hard and long experience over 40 years how different and how difficult it is to operate in other European countries.
Those of us whose lives are spent in trying to relieve human suffering beg the Minister and the Government to appoint a representative in Brussels as soon as possible. I again stress the urgency, for we as a sovereign state cannot lose all our traditions of giving and running sound charitable foundations. It really could be a disaster for thousands of the sick and handicapped both in Britain and overseas unless suitable action is taken now.
7.11 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, all of us—and perhaps in particular those of us who have been involved with the voluntary sector and charities for a long time—will be extremely grateful to the noble Earl for bringing forward this important subject and putting interesting and pertinent questions to the Government this evening. The noble Earl said clearly how charities in Britain hold an important place in not only the life of the country but also in the culture of the country, and that there is a particular ethos attached to our voluntary sector and to our charities which is really quite different from that to be found in any other country.
One has seen how in recent years the work of our voluntary agencies has increased very much as state provision for the needs of certain sectors of society has diminished. At the same time the work of the voluntary sector has tried to replace it. This would be a good opportunity to pay our great respect to the talented and enormously dedicated people who work in Britain in those organisations. Their work is vital to the life of so many people in this country. Therefore obviously any kind of threat to the work of this particular sector is of enormous worry. It is for that reason that the points that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, have made this evening are of great importance.
We have been told that the first major area of concern for charities in Britain is the definition of charities, because our charities fear that moves towards a common definition of charities throughout the EC will result in a much narrower definition than that which we currently enjoy. This is of great concern. The second major area of concern is tax approximation—namely, as the noble Earl has said, the fear that the European Commission's proposals for approximation of VAT rates will result in a loss of zero rates. We could give many examples of the difference that this would make to the fortunes of many of our major charities in this country.
I should just like to spend a couple of minutes drawing the debate a little more widely, as the noble Earl has included in his Question "a wider Europe". I should like to point out that there are now many more charities seeking to develop a role across the continent, to find partners in other countries, and themselves to operate in other countries. What they need to facilitate this process is a common legal structure. That would enable them to run integrated operations across frontiers, to offset profits and losses in different countries, and to use a single accounting system for all operations.
We welcome the ratification by Her Majesty's Government of the Council's convention on the recognition of the legal personality of international NGOs. However, it is generally thought that this does not go far enough, and what many charities, and the NCVO in particular, have requested is the establishment of a common legal structure. Perhaps I might ask the Minister in that connection, and with respect to European cross-border fund raising, whether the proposals that I have suggested are being considered

1123
by the European Commission. Could the noble Lord say whether organisations based in Britain will be able to apply for grants from other European countries' overseas aid funds? Could he also say whether a charity wishing to raise money in another European Community country would have to register? That would be an important point for them.
I should also like to ask one question of the Minister about the know-how fund. I hope that he will not think that I am going outside the debate, but the recent announcement by the Government that the know-how fund is to be increased and extended to new countries in Eastern Europe is welcome. I should like to ask the Minister whether there will be scope, within the provisions of this fund, to assist and advise governments, charities and NGOs in Eastern Europe as to how to establish legal frameworks in which their new charities can best operate. Also, can the know-how fund be extended to cover the social provision work of new charities and voluntary organisations operating in Eastern Europe? Of course they often operate in partnership with British charities.
After all, there are many people in those countries who would like to play their part in the social reconstruction of the countries of Eastern Europe. There is little doubt that this is critically needed, and surely this is an area in which Britain can help. Britain is extremely experienced in how to structure and set up charitable organisations, and this could well be done through the know-how fund.
My last point relates again to a European fund which is close and helpful to our voluntary organisations, and that is the European Social Fund. The objective of this fund is to increase training places in the United Kingdom, and the Commission has recognised the special ability of the United Kingdom voluntary sector in delivering the kind of training that the fund seeks to promote. Therefore, our agencies have been very successful in acquiring funds from the European Social Fund. Indeed, the British voluntary sector receives some £18 million from the European Social Fund, which comprises over 7.5 per cent. of the total United Kingdom budget. As I say, it is spent on vital training work, including transnational training exchanges.
However, it is the role of the Department of Employment to co-ordinate British applications, and unfortunately the Department has been doing this in a dilatory fashion, which has endangered the effectiveness of the scheme. For example, when the Commission handled co-ordination the voluntary organisations were notified by April. Now that the Department of Employment handles it, voluntary organisations are not receiving funding notifications. This has created a great funding crisis for many providers of training, and some may be forced to close down their operations. Would the Minister undertake to make changes in the European Social Fund unit in the Department of Employment to ensure that delays do not occur next year?
There is little doubt that we are fortunate in this country in possessing such a vibrant and wholly
1124
professional voluntary sector, and it is an area in which we could take the lead in Europe. The noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, spoke with a voice of great authority in this debate and, as other noble Lords and the noble Baroness have said, I believe that it is important for the Government to make sure that any harmonisation should be to the level of the best possible practice. Although I am not usually a great nationalist, I believe that our practice in this country is at a very high level.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, developments in Europe offer the charitable and voluntary sector in this country a challenge. There are opportunities but there are also hazards. The Question which my noble friend has brought before us this evening affords us a most welcome chance to take a look at this challenge.
The system of charities which has grown up in this country is unique and much prized. I agree with the noble Baroness on that point. As my noble friend told us, we have a charity system of considerable scope. It has been estimated that the turnover of the charitable sector amounts to about £15 billion.
Charities are bodies whose property and income must be entirely applied for public benefit and under their constitutions no part of their funds may be distributed for private or personal purposes. Their trustees receive no personal benefit from them. Charitable property receives special protection from the law.
The Government make a considerable contribution to the well-being of charities. Charitable status brings with it substantial tax benefit. The Charity Commission protects and assists charities.
The word "charity" has a narrower meaning in other European states. It tends to be confined to bodies whose purposes are the relief of poverty and distress. There are of course bodies corresponding to the range of our charities doing comparable good in other European countries but their structure is different.
The creation of a single market in Europe has prompted the European Commission to consider how the benefits of the removal of barriers to trade may be extended to bodies in the voluntary and charitable sector. It has considered how obstacles to voluntary and charitable bodies that wish to operate in other member states may be removed. The charitable sector will, I have no doubt, learn from a greater involvement in Europe. I am equally sure that Europe can learn from the best elements of our arrangements.
We know that some charities are alive to these opportunities; indeed my noble friend participated in the seminar which the Charity Commission recently held on developments in Europe which was attended by a large number of representatives of government departments, charities and voluntary bodies.
However, the fact that charities are unique to this country means that their position under European Community law needs to be carefully protected. At present the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act do not cover charities

1125
specifically. There is some discussion in Brussels about the possibility of creating a statute to cover the voluntary sector. This would include our charities. Bringing voluntary bodies under Community law in this way may be a good way of facilitating operations by charities and voluntary bodies in other member states. However, it would need to protect their special position. The development of a statute is at a very early stage and thus far no specific proposals have emerged. But I can assure noble Lords that Her Majesty's Government are keeping a close watch on developments.
We have taken account of the position of charities in the context of another European Commission proposal to bring charities into the sphere of Community law; that is, a proposal to interpret Article 58 of the Treaty of Rome in such a way as to bring the charitable and voluntary sectors within the scope of Community law.
Several noble Lords referred to Article 58. That has hitherto been understood as excluding from Community law all non-profit making organisations. The Commission's proposed interpretation would exclude only those bodies not engaged in economic activity; that is only a small number of UK charities. We do not think that this is the best way to preserve the role of charities. Community law drawn up along the lines of such an interpretation may not be compatible with our charity law. We have resisted and shall continue to resist that interpretation. However, discussion on possible interpretations is still under way. We shall, of course, maintain a close involvement in that discussion.
We do not believe that the European Commission has any current legislative proposals in mind which would have an undesirable effect on United Kingdom charities. But charities may in the future be exposed to the possibility of legislation which may inhibit activities in pursuit of their objects, albeit that this may be unintentional. We are discussing this with the Commission at the moment. The Commission is, because of our representations, coming to realise that the charitable sector here should be distinctively recognised by, if necessary, special provision. The voluntary sector here and equally in other member states has distinctive qualities which, if they are to be effective, should be recognised by special provision.
We have sought also to protect our charities' position in the face of other proposals from the Commission which affect charities indirectly. We have for example worked to protect the favourable VAT position of charities and we have corrected the EC directive on driving licences to preserve the valuable role played by voluntary minibus drivers. My noble friend referred to that matter.
My noble friend's Question goes wider, however, than the European Community. I know that he plays a valuable role in the UK delegation to the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe brings the European nations together on a broader basis than the Community. In particular it provides a context in which contacts with
1126
Eastern European countries can be developed. The Council of Europe is not a law making body in the same way as the European Community, but its function in developing common standards and principles is invaluable.
British charities are not, of course, dependent on government in order to participate in Europe. There are indeed a number of networks bringing together charities and voluntary bodies in Europe to help them co-operate at a European level. This co-operation involves a desire to exchange ideas with European counterparts and has also underlined the need for the voluntary sector to be better informed as to developments in Community law. Perhaps I might mention one such network, the European Committee of General-Interest Associations, CEDAG for short. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations, NCVO, here is actively involved in this developing voice in Brussels. Indeed the NCVO representative is one of the vice-presidents of CEDAG.
Finally, I wish to acknowledge the developing role which British charities are playing in Eastern Europe. One well publicised example of that is the contribution to the Romanian orphanages. Another example has been the assistance given to the victims of the Armenian earthquake. In our view a flourishing voluntary sector is important to the development of a pluralist democracy and a market economy. However, we should not forget that we are looking at societies that are involved in great change which have their own ideas and their own traditions and to whom we can offer valuable assistance and insights.
A voluntary sector, in the sense we understand it, cannot be imposed from without, or conjured up from within. But what we can do, and what individual organisations in the UK are already doing, is to share knowledge, advice and expertise to help develop an infrastructure for the voluntary sector in Eastern Europe.
I shall try to reply to some of the questions that were put to me. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked about VAT. I can reassure noble Lords that we intend to protect the zero rate for charities where charities enjoy it today. I was asked whether we would consider sending an expert to Brussels to help charities in their relations with Brussels and to establish a contact with the Commission. We have a permanent representative's office in Brussels which represents our interests. However, on this specific matter we have been invited by the Commission to consider taking the step I have mentioned. We are looking for a suitable person who might enable us to take up this proposal.
My noble friend asked whether we would produce a booklet to show our charities how charities operate in the different member countries of the EC. We would be happy to consider that step in consultation with the charities' organisations which make up the European groupings. I cannot promise that we shall do this as it has resource implications, but we are happy to consider it. My noble friend also asked whether we would conduct discussions with the Council of Europe with a view to the council becoming some kind of

1127
focus for charities in their involvement outside the Community. That is what I understood by my noble friend's comments. We would be perfectly happy to discuss that with the relevant organ of the Council of Europe.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked about the know-how fund. The know-how fund does not include the voluntary sector in its remit and is obliged to concentrate on priority sectors agreed with the Eastern European governments concerned, namely, those of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia so far. The noble Baroness asked other questions but, if I may, I should like to write to her with the answers.
In conclusion, I am grateful for my noble friend's reminder that we must not be parochial in considering
1128
the interests of charities and that charities themselves should be prepared to look towards the opportunities that are on offer in Europe. The Government are engaged in active dialogue with the European Commission, as I indicated, to ensure that the special position of our charities is preserved. That will enable them to play their full role in Europe. We also watch with interest developments further afield. Although it is perhaps too soon to speak of a unified policy for a wider Europe, it is not too soon to confirm that we are working to ensure that our experience of charity law in the United Kingdom is made known to our fellow Europeans.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.