Lords Sitting of 17 June 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

Adult Education: Funding
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they will ensure the continuation of non-vocational adult education, in view of the proposals in the White Papers of 20th May to end subsidies for such education and to rely on fees.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the White Papers make a distinction between the funding of education leading to a range of important outcomes and education meeting the leisure and recreational interests of adults, not between vocational and non-vocational education. We expect recreational courses to continue to be put on by a wide range of bodies, including LEAs, colleges, voluntary bodies and school governing bodies under their new freedoms. People have shown that they are prepared to pay for leisure activities of all kinds, and we believe that they are also prepared to pay for recreational courses.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government's proposals in the White Paper on adult education have cast gloom and despondency upon the adult education world if only because the Government appear to have failed to understand how blurred the demarcation lines are between vocational, non-vocational, academic and leisure adult education? Can the Minister specifically reassure the House that the Government will provide LEAs with sufficient funding to continue to subsidise so-called leisure adult education?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in addition to vocational education the funding council will be able to fund academic courses, basic skills courses, access to higher education courses, special needs and returning to learning courses. There will be some overlap but LEAs will be left with funds to pay for people who wish to enjoy leisure-recreational classes where they deem it necessary.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, will my noble friend remember that the non-vocational courses are probably the most merciful and wonderful gift that can be given to people who are old, sick and retired or those who have no friends? Thousands of people in this country find friendship and encouragement through such courses. A cutback would cause untold misery to people who do not deserve it. Therefore, will the Minister think carefully about taking any action that will harm what is regarded in this country as one of our best services?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend has made an important point. Nothing that has been stated in the White Papers will preclude those provisions being made available to the elderly and to the young. There will be a change in the funding mechanism but not a cut in the funding for such classes. There will be a presumption in favour of fee-paying for leisure and recreational classes, but local authorities will be able to intervene by way of subsidy where they deem it necessary.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is great dissatisfaction and sorrow among unemployed young people about the youth non-vocational training courses? The many young people who are not accepted for such courses cannot claim supplementary benefit. Will the Minister look into that matter.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not certain of the specific difficulty to which my noble friend refers. Local education authorities will remain free to intervene by way of subsidies for young people if they believe that the course which the young person wishes

3
to pursue is important. A basic skills course as a ladder to further learning will come under the new funding council.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, in view of what the Minister said about the new thinking, will she encourage local authorities, before the provisions in the White Paper are implemented, by giving them more aid to pursue such classes?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Your Lordships will notice that I made no distinction between vocational and non-vocational courses. However, it will be important for local education authorities to look at the profile across their areas and where they believe it necessary to encourage by way of intervention and subsidy. They should also encourage people who can afford to pay to take advantage of this important provision.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I first apologise to the Minister because in asking my question I speak entirely from memory. I firmly believe the White Paper to have stated that, as regards the leisure activities referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, it was assumed that local authorities would be charging full-cost fees. Do I now understand that the White Paper does not state that? Is it correct that since the publication of the White Paper two weeks ago the Government have changed their view and that they no longer believe that leisure activities should be charged at full cost?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no. The noble Lord's memory serves him well. The presumption for leisure and recreation will be in favour of fee charging and local authorities will continue to have power where they deem it necessary to intervene by way of subsidy.
Lord Peston: My Lords, am I not right in saying that it is precisely the sort of activity which the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, thought so important which will be charged full-cost fees?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no. There will be a presumption in favour of low-cost fees but where the local authority believes that an elderly person cannot afford to pay and that it is desirable for intervention by way of subsidy, then local authorities will be empowered so to intervene. It is not right to assume that because people are elderly, they are not able to pay for recreational courses.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an assurance that where such courses are likely to collapse because there are large numbers of elderly people who cannot afford to pay full-cost fees, the Government will provide local authorities with sufficient funding for extensive subsidies?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this year the Government increased by 16 per cent. SSAs for education to local authorities. Within that, there was a 13 per cent. increase in the heading which covers adult education. The Government's record is good. However, we cannot and do not say that we shall
4
intervene in how education authorities spend that money. The hope is that where there is a deemed need, local authorities will do all they can to meet that need.
Viscount Combermere: My Lords, I have been engaged in adult education for over 20 years. In volume one, paragraph 9.11 of the White Paper states that,
"public expenditure on education for adults will be concentrated on the courses that can help them in their careers and in daily life".
Will the Minister specify courses which do not help people in their daily lives?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Viscount has misinterpreted what that means. The Government have said that they will give priority to courses which enable people to achieve access to the world of work and which further their careers and self-development. I have admitted that there is some overlap. Local authorities will continue to provide leisure and recreational courses, some of which will fall into the category of self-development and self-enhancement. The presumption will be in favour of charging fees for those courses but there will continue to be the power to intervene by subsidy for groups of people who are unable to pay for the courses.

Low Cost Business Loans
2.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to set up a credit institution to provide low-cost loans to small and medium-sized enterprises.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no plans to establish an institution to provide finance to small and medium-sized businesses. Her Majesty's Government already do a great deal for small and medium-sized businesses.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on 31st May the Financial Times contained a fairly detailed expose of what such a proposition may be and that Mr. Eric Forth, the Minister responsible for small businesses, stated that the Government were considering that proposition, among other possibilities? Is he further aware that in France and Germany organisations of that sort have existed for many years and have been of great help to small and medium-sized businesses? In the present situation in which small businesses find themselves in great difficulties in raising money at reasonable rates, does not the Minister consider that an imaginative move of that sort could be of enormous help to industrial recovery?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government already do a great deal for small and medium-sized enterprises. The business expansion scheme has helped many individuals to invest in small, unquoted companies. By the end of April this year the loan guarantee scheme had made 28,000 loans worth almost £900 million. Moreover, the measures announced in the Budget brought major benefits to

5
small businesses; for example, the cut in the frequency of PAYE payments, the increased VAT registration threshold, and so on.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, have been outlined in many influential newspapers? People believe that that useful idea will now become a reality. Further, does he not agree that many large firms began because they were able to obtain finance in the form of loans? This is a wonderful opportunity for the Government to show that they back 100 per cent. the spirit of free enterprise.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we do not need the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, to tell us to back the spirit or free enterprise; we certainly do. Presumably all large firms began as small firms and many have become successful. I have already outlined the measures which the Government have taken to help small companies. I am aware of the measures taken in France and Germany, but we have our ways and they have theirs.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, while acknowledging the importance which the Government attach to the health of small businesses, does not the Minister agree that it would be a good idea to have a small businesses' ombudsman since small businesses are not able to avail themselves of the services of, for example the banking ombudsman and many other ombudsman services?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point, which I shall pass on.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by reminding the House that the clock is not working and that therefore we may take longer on Questions than we otherwise would. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House understands what I am saying.
Will it not be proper for the Government to build on the experience of the Welsh Development Agency, the Scottish Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales which provide serious and substantial services for small and medium-sized businesses? Is that not the right way to go about it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am certain that the fact that the clock is not working will enable the House to realise that the replies given from the Dispatch Box this afternoon are very good and, therefore, perhaps we need not take 30 minutes on Questions.
The noble Lord gives examples of three government organisations which, although they may have been set up in previous times, have been carried forward within the past 12 years. They give just the sort of assistance to small businesses which the House welcomes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people in small businesses will be very surprised to hear that the Government still
6
believe in private enterprise for small businesses, especially those people in the 40,000 businesses which will go bankrupt this year?
Is the noble Lord further aware that small businesses find great difficulty in obtaining capital to keep them going? They are also having great difficulty because the Government will not reduce interest rates to below 10 per cent. That is the only action that will resuscitate business in this country. Are the Government convinced that the only way to deal with the economic problems and the slump that they have brought about is to produce and administer the same failed medicine as before?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord states that we have not reduced interest rates. We have reduced interest rates by 3.5 per cent. since last October when we joined the exchange rate mechanism. Interest rates are now lower than they have been for some considerable time.
The noble Lord further asserts that the credit crunch is seriously hampering small firms. The April CBI survey indicated that only 3 per cent. of firms cited the inability to raise external finance as a significant constraint on investment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does not the Minister understand that small businesses are in dire trouble because the interest rate cut of 3.5 per cent. is insufficient? Has he heard the news that the May retail figures are lower than for April, and are 2.3 per cent. lower than in May last year? That is a tragedy for small businesses.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I also heard the news last Friday that inflation has fallen to 5.8 per cent. That is extremely good news, which means that we shall be able to reduce interest rates when it is prudent to do so. I am sure that we shall continue to adopt that policy.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be as unreasonable to blame the clock for a long Question Time as it would be difficult to give special treatment to what are described as small or medium-sized businesses?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point. If one gives special treatment to one sector of the economy it is inevitably at the expense of another.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that despite what he says about the lowering of interest rates many small and medium-sized firms are suffering greatly from the extremely high interest rates? Is he also aware of the allegations made against the major banks about the interest rates that they have applied, particularly to small and medium sized firms? Can the Minister say what progress the Government have made in investigating those allegations? When shall we hear the findings and the recommendations that the Government will make?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government recognise that there is great anxiety about the issue raised by the noble Baroness.

7
However, most of the evidence is anecdotal. Inevitably, in most cases letters and press reports cover only one side of the story. We shall consider whether any government action is appropriate when we have more information. We shall not prejudge the issue on anecdotal evidence.

Television: Use of Bad Language
2.58 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further action they will take to check the use of obscene and blasphemous language in television programmes.
The Minister of State, Home Office(Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the content of individual programmes is a matter for the broadcasting authorities. But the Government have recently established the Broadcasting Standards Council and have extended the Obscene Publications Act to broadcasting.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that factual Answer. However, it does not meet the point with which I am concerned. Is he aware that last month a report was published by the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association, which regularly monitors the programmes of BBC 1, BBC 2, ITV and Channel 4, which finds that the number of obscenities and blasphemies in programmes has increased threefold over the past three years? The incidence is about 40 a week.
My noble friend played a distinguished part in placing the Broadcasting Act on the statute book. That Act states that nothing likely to offend against good taste and decency or to offend public feeling should be transmitted. Does he acknowledge that further action is now needed? Will he ask the authorities to take action to restrain their producers from this increasing debasement of the language?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's anxiety. Very often the use of bad language is completely unnecessary and adds nothing other than to give offence to the viewer. However, that is a personal observation. The Government have to remain separate from the issue. The broadcasters have to be constitutionally independent of government. Arrangements have been made for satisfactory programmes to be made and to be monitored. If people have cause to complain, they can complain either to the BBC or ITC—the regulatory bodies—or to the Broadcasting Standards Council. But it would not be right for the Government to interfere in such cases.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, while we understand the independence of the broadcasting media, is it not also a fact that by raising the matter today the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has served notice on those who seem to believe that the media belongs to them that their influence upon
8
standards in this country is too great for them ever to feel so independent that nobody has a right to put a brake upon them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Viscount makes a very good point. I believe that some people feel that they are sufficiently independent that they can do what they like. The television companies do not belong to the producers but nor do they belong to the Government. All that the Government can do is to set up a regime in which standards can operate and through which people may make complaints if they feel that standards are not upheld. Let us remember this. If a licensee does not keep to certain standards, the Independent Television Commission has the right to reprimand him and fine him 5 per cent. of his net advertising revenue. A company which earns £200 million can be fined £10 million and its licence revoked.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, we understand the difficult problem that faces the noble Earl. But does he not agree that if some of the language that we hear on television were uttered on the streets, those who make such foul utterances could be arrested for using bad language?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand that those who use such language do so because they believe that it is the language that people use on the streets.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government's duty to stand back makes it all the more important that opinions should be expressed publicly in this House? Having read the report to which my noble friend, Lord Nugent, referred, does my noble friend the Minister accept that much of the language reproduced in it would have been startling and shocking on the lips of a trooper 20 years ago, let alone on the lips of a fishwife? Is it not regrettable that the change of standards that has occurred over that period should now be influenced by an authority which has exercised a downward pressure over the past three years?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Although the Government may not be in a position to dictate what should or should not be broadcast, as he knows too well, it is perfectly right for concern to be expressed. But I was a little anxious if he felt that a fishwife's language was rather worse than a trooper's. My experience is that it would be the other way round.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, none of us appreciates gratuitous use of bad language. However, is the Minister aware that according to the latest 1990 attitudes to TV survey published by the Independent Television Commission (which covers ITV, Channel 4 and the BBC) there has been a significant decrease in the offence caused to the public by bad language? Is that not a more accurate index than simply counting up the incidence of certain words in late night films, as the survey did to which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, referred? Monitoring by a count was the method used by the National Viewers' and Listeners'

9
Association, and it related entirely to late night films. The survey did not ask people whether they were or were not offended.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that the method of research used on the two occasions was different. The occasion to which the noble Baroness refers indicates overall approval or otherwise of the programmes which are broadcast. The research carried out by the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association is a mathematical calculation of how many times such words were used. I thought that was horrifying.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the point has been made very neatly. The broadcasters have an enormous effect on national standards. It is regrettable that those standards should be lowered.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is quite right.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that the function of swearing and bad language is, like all aggressive displays, to substitute psychological or verbal violence for physical violence? Does he further agree that the more commonplace its usage the less effective that prophylactic is?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I certainly agree with the second part of the noble Earl's question.

London Underground: MMC Report
3 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to carry out the recommendations of the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the London Underground (Cm 1555).
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, both the Government and London Underground Ltd. will give very careful consideration to the recommendations in the report. We shall be publishing our response in due course.
Lord Jay: My Lords, has the Minister noticed the statements made by the commission that the travelling public have been the principal victim because of under-Funding of the system in recent years? Does he agree that many deficiencies in the system, particularly of renewal after many years of neglect, require substantial government assistance before they can be put right?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to under-funding of the system. I believe he also spoke of recent years. I merely point out that since the Government took over the funding of London Transport Ltd. from the GLC only five years or so ago, funding has more than doubled from £165 million to £440 million.
The report makes a very considerable number of recommendations. There are 114 in all; 12 of them involve the Government and only three are for the
10
Government alone. We shall respond to the report within the next three or four months. We find it a very valuable report.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, has my noble friend noted that the report is somewhat lacking in enthusiasm for the standards of administration operated by London Underground Ltd?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is. As I have said, it is a very valuable report. It makes a large number of recommendations, among which are those noted by my noble friend. I hope that they will be acted on by London Underground Ltd.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister seriously seeking to avoid any strictures on the part of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for the current under-funding? Is he not aware that it has been suggested in the report that what the Government are proposing to do would measure up to only half of London Underground's basic needs? Is it still the Government's intention in the foreseeable future to insist on a subsidy-free network for London Underground? In that case the corollary would be that fare increases are the only answer that the Conservative Government see, which is rather unfair to the passengers of London Underground, who have to endure so much?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, what the noble Lord fails to recognise is that any money spent on subsidies means that there is less money to be spent for investment. The Government have responded vigorously to the need for huge investment after decades of neglect. It is not just a question of pumping in more money. Raising standards on the oldest underground network in the world will take time and commitment by London Underground as well as by the Government.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister therefore deny the assertion which is made in the report that what the Government are proposing to do represents roughly half of the basic needs of London Underground?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we do not necessarily deny the assertions made in the report. As I have said, we shall respond to the report in due time and with due consideration.
Lord Jay: My Lords, will the Minister at least assure the House that, in fixing the financial targets for London Underground for the present financial year, which they have not yet done, they will take seriously the recommendations made in the report?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe I can give that assurance.

Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Bill
3.5 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Allen of Abbeydale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Brougham and Vaux.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Radioactive Materials (Road Transport) Bill
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
I thank noble Lords who have taken part in discussions on the Bill. We have the advantage in your Lordships' House of having here former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland. I see the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, in his place this afternoon. In addition, I thank noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench who took part in the discussions on the Bill; namely, the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, Lord
12
Blease; Lord Holme of Cheltenham from the Liberal Benches, and my noble friends Lord Colnbrook, Lord Renton, Lord Lyell, Lord Skelmersdale, Lord Elton and Lord Brookeborough.
The House—not least through amendments which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who has notified that he is unable to be here this afternoon —has made a number of important amendments. As a result, I believe that we have a Bill which is appropriate to the prevailing and serious threat in Northern Ireland. I believe that the Bill strikes a balance in affording the police and the Armed Forces acting in their support the legal means that they must have to protect effectively all members of the community in Northern Ireland. At the same time undoubtedly the Bill has appropriate safeguards for individuals.
I also express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Colville for his thorough and comprehensive report, which has been of enormous value in our discussions on the Bill and in consideration of the form which the legislation should properly take both here and in another place.
We recognise that legislation cannot of itself bring terrorism to an end. The Government will therefore continue in parallel to press on with implementing effective measures in the political, economic and social fields, designed to promote equality of treatment, prosperity and stable democratic institutions. We believe that such measures will help to create a climate in Northern Ireland in which peaceful political development can take place, thereby reinforcing the efforts of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army in freeing the people of Northern Ireland from the scourge of terrorism. Once again I thank noble Lords who took part in the passage of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the Minister said, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, who played a very active part in the proceedings on this Bill, very much regrets that he cannot be with us this afternoon. I know he would like me at the outset to thank the Minister for his kind remarks and for the courteous way in which he has handled the business throughout the passage of the Bill, as we always expect him to do.
Your Lordships may be surprised that I am speaking today as I have played no part in the deliberations at any previous stage. However, it may be known to many noble Lords that over a number of years I have had certain responsibilities for matters in Northern Ireland and I therefore welcome the opportunity to set out clearly the views of the Opposition on this important Bill.
We have declared time and again that we totally regret and resent any attempt to promote political objectives by violence or the threat of violence. That is why we readily accept that security forces must have appropriate powers to deal with terrorist crime and the threat of terrorism. However, at the same time we are also fully committed to the improvement of relations between the security forces and the community and to promoting public confidence in the administration of justice. That is why any departure

13
from the rule of law that is considered necessary must be balanced by essential safeguards to protect the rights of innocent suspects. Our approach to the Bill has been guided by the need to achieve those four objectives.
This Bill will be the main legal framework which will govern the operation of the security forces and the police in relation to terrorism in Northern Ireland during the next five years. It will be noted that the Bill has grown substantially since it was introduced last November. Moreover, additional regulations may yet be made by the Secretary of State under Clause 58, upon which much time was spent in Committee and on Report. The thrust of the Bill is not only to continue all existing emergency powers but to add to their number; in particular, by creating new powers and new, wide-ranging, offences. In Committee and on Report efforts were made to introduce new safeguards to protect innocent suspects or to restrict the scope of the new powers against abuse or mistake; for example, the power to examine documents found in the course of a search. The risks with some of the new powers are great and may be seen as a recipe for harassment.
Some of our amendments were based on the recommendations of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, the recommendations of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, or on the advice of the Committee on the Administration of Justice We find it deeply worrying that these efforts in genera were not successful. Indeed, there was very little support from the House for those amendments although they were designed to safeguard human rights. The Government are confident that the new powers will work well and we can only hope that time and experience will demonstrate that the Government's optimism is well-founded.
It is particularly regrettable that the Government could not be persuaded to accept the recommendation of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that the power of internment should be dropped. That reform would have signalled that conditions were emerging for Northern Ireland to return to some normality. On the other hand, the Opposition fully support the complex new powers which will be available to disrupt terrorist racketeering. We welcome the setting up of the office of Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures, although we would have strengthened the terms of reference. We also welcome the powers contained in Clauses 61 and 62 to make codes of practice. We would have expanded the use of codes of practice in at least two other spheres. It is accepted that the statutory code of practice is in a colder climate than hitherto. Nevertheless, in the absence of more detailed guidance in the primary legislation, codes of practice are a good second-best.
The leaders of the constitutional parties are today meeting in the first plenary session of stage one of the talks. The whole House will welcome that development. From the Opposition Benches we congratulate the Secretary of State on this considerable achievement. The existence of the Bill is a reminder—if a reminder is required—that there is urgent need to move in Northern Ireland towards a political
14
settlement. Therefore, we earnestly hope that no further obstacles will be put in the way of the talks and that they will continue until eventual settlement is reached.
I repeat the regret of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies that he cannot be here. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, if I have to leave before he replies. I have an important political engagement outside the House.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, from these Benches I offer our warm thanks to the Minister. We thank him not only for his thoroughness and courtesy during the passage of the Bill but also for listening to noble Lords on the Benches opposite and, in one or two regrettably small but nevertheless welcome instances, for taking on board the comments that have been made.
On these Benches we believe that this Bill is a necessity, but a regrettable necessity. Anyone who doubts that it is a necessity should consider the activities of the provisional IRA and its thuggish counterparts on the other side during the period that has led up to the approach of the substantive talks today. There seems to have been every sign of an escalation in the tactics of terror and violence. They must be resisted. This is the best chance for the people of Northern Ireland to speak. Any attempts during that period to put obstacles in the way of a peaceful resolution must be resisted in the way that this Bill makes possible.
That does not mean that we support every part of the Bill in detail, even as amended, although we welcome the steps that have been taken in the right direction. On the positive side, perhaps I may say how much we welcome the Government's attempts to curb racketeering in Northern Ireland. This is potentially of the greatest possible danger to a civilised society. The Government's proposals on resisting the institutionalisation of terrorism in the form of rackets is to be welcomed. On a more critical note, I hope that the Government's proposal to appoint someone to monitor procedures at holding centres for terrorist suspects, and the intention to introduce a code of interrogation, will go beyond what the Minister described at Second Reading as the formative stage.
I also emphasise that the case for video-recording interviews, which was made strongly from these Benches and supported from the Labour Benches, is one that the Government will, in time, have to accept. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in his distinguished report, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, and practically everyone else, are on common ground in that respect. It is still a puzzle as to why the Government felt unable to move in that direction. Finally, I express our reservations in regard to Clause 34, which maintains detention without trial and brings into conflict the European Convention on Human Rights.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I take the opportunity to wish the very best for the talks starting today at Stormont and to express the hope that in the

15
long term their success will make such legislation unnecessary. We all owe a great debt to the Secretary of State for his patience in getting the negotiations to this crucial point. However, I should like to emphasise that if we can find a formula whereby the people of Northern Ireland have the opportunity to determine the future of Northern Ireland, and a genuine opportunity for self-government, then we shall have succeeded. I believe it is the force of public opinion both in Northern Ireland and in Britain that has helped to keep the politicians talking. I was particularly encouraged to read a recent opinion poll in the Irish Times which showed that 82 per cent. of people in the Republic of Ireland would be happy to see a delay in the creation of a united Ireland if it gave time for settlement in Northern Ireland. I believe that the election of Mary Robinson as President has made a very great difference to the atmosphere in the Irish Republic.
In the North, too, I believe that public opinion is in favour of progress. I should like to put on record my belief that the people of both North and South will cast a very critical eye on any further attempts at brinkmanship. It is time that these hour by hour histrionics came to an end. Some of the parties to the talks in Northern Ireland have been too slow to detect the change in attitudes which is under way among the public in Northern Ireland. If they fail to adapt to the new mood in public opinion, they will be left behind in the peace process, a sad, anachronistic monument to sectarianism.
We support the Bill as a proper precaution and for establishing a cautious context in which the only progress that matters—not tougher security, but more prosperity, better community relations and a new political settlement—can take place. In the balance that has to be struck—the Bill attempts to strike a balance between liberty and security—I believe that it is time we started to tilt the balance back to liberty and civil rights. It is time we no longer had to apologise and to derogate. I am sure that the Bill will help to contain terrorism militarily and from the security point of view. In the end, however, we can only defeat it politically.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, during the passage of the Bill through the House amendments were put forward from these Benches. Those amendments were designed to inflict the maximum damage on the terrorist and at the same time protect the rights of innocent individuals. A series of amendments related to codes of practice. They required that the Army, the police and the security forces in general, in their dealings with the population in Northern Ireland, should give every consideration to ensuring that the least possible harassment was inflicted on innocent individuals.
The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Holme, and myself said that the Army can be a very blunt instrument. The police, in dealing with the scourge of terrorism, have to appear to the overwhelming majority of the Catholic population, which is a crucial factor in every respect, to be acting in strict conformity with the rule of law. If at any time there appears to be a move away from that by the
16
police or the Army, it will be jumped upon by the IRA and its supporters. We have seen it in all the allegations since 1982 about the shoot to kill policy. An incident took place last week in which three IRA terrorists were killed. Stories are gaining ground in Northern Ireland that once again a shoot to kill policy is being operated and that the security forces want not to arrest the terrorists but to kill them.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has experience of Northern Ireland. He will be aware of how these allegations gain credence over a period of days, weeks and months, and eventually write themselves into the whole mythology and psyche of the Irish nationalist population in Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. The police must be seen to be above suspicion in relation to their security duties. That is why, together with other speakers on this side of the House, I supported amendments to ensure that justice would not only be done but would be seen to be done.
Only last week in this country there was a case in which it was alleged that the police had acted wrongly in relation to the Guildford Four. Serious allegations were made. The magistrate said that with the passing of 14 or 15 years it would be impossible for the police to have a fair trial. That was immediately jumped on by the IRA. It then said that the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six did not have fair trials and that they had to wait 14 years and 16 years to be vindicated. I do not want to see the police in that position. I do not want to see a magistrate in the position of having to withdraw the facility of a fair trial of the police on the ground that so many years had elapsed that it would be unfair to have a trial.
If the Government had accepted the amendments put forward from this side of the House they would have got around that problem. There would have been a strict code of practice to be followed by the Army and the police in relation to terrorism. We would not have had to wait 14 or 16 years for the vindication of the pleas of innocence of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. We would not have had a magistrate in this country refusing to hear evidence on the ground that 14 years had elapsed and that therefore it was not possible to have a fair trial.
I know that we are at a late stage in the proceedings on the Bill. However, I hope that when we next come to debate this subject, through perhaps the introduction of an order, the Government will bear in mind the valid objections to the Bill and the reasonableness of the amendments that were put forward. The amendments were designed not to help terrorists in Northern Ireland but to make certain that the security forces are above suspicion.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the way he has handled the Bill. As someone who lives in Northern Ireland, I should like to thank those noble Lords who contributed to the proceedings on the Bill but who do not live there. I am sure that the people in Northern Ireland are grateful to them for taking such an interest.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, to the extent that it is most regrettable that a Bill such as this has to be passed. It is, however,

17
necessary. Everyone would like to see the time when such Bills are no longer necessary and there is peace in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that people should think that the talks which may be about to start in Northern Ireland will mean the end of terrorist violence. Unfortunately, nothing like that will appease the terrorists. Although, obviously, we wish the talks the very best of success, we cannot necessarily see an end to terrorism in the near future. While the Government's response to the problems has been the Bill—it is to be hoped that it will be a great help—there are certain worrying aspects of the Government's response to other events.
It has been lately reported that the professional heads of the security forces in Northern Ireland—the Army and the RUC—have requested two extra roulement battalions. That is not a request for more soldiers because of an increase in violence. My noble friend the Minister will probably say that extra troops are there at the moment. It has been reported that the two roulement battalions have been requested. The Government have not publicly denied that. We all hear of people in Northern Ireland, very often from one side of the population, calling for more troops. This is not one of those calls. This is a call from the professional heads who are there to do an extremely difficult job and to judge how they should do it best. It is rather worrying that the Government do not seem to be responding to that request, if indeed it has been made. In Northern Ireland we should like to consider that we have been given the best available heads of the security forces. Therefore we should like to see their request granted. Having said that, I shall just add that I welcome the Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I concur with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Underhill. He has had considerable experience of dealing with Northern Ireland affairs. In making my contribution I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. We are both residents of Northern Ireland and our families live there. I share with him the wish to extend the grateful thanks of the citizens of Northern Ireland to all those who have taken a thoughtful interest in the passage of the Bill, especially through this House.
I join also in the warm appreciation expressed for all noble Lords who have served in Northern Ireland as Ministers from both sides of the House. As has been said, they are deserving of our every support. They sacrifice their home lives, with consequences for their families in this country, in many respects. I believe that their efforts in attempting to bring peace, justice and prosperity to Northern Ireland should be warmly appreciated.
Like many noble Lords, I find that most, if not all, legislative measures directly concerning the Province are fraught with complications as regards comprehension. Their implementation, in terms of parliamentary democracy, can sometimes be bewildering. The culture of parliamentary democracy is somewhat differently applied in Northern Ireland. That is all the more reason for legislation coming before this Parliament in both Houses to be examined with care
18
and sensitivity. The Bill before us is perhaps more difficult and challenging in the sense of obtaining consensus than most Northern Ireland legislative measures. Indeed, it is fraught from the very first paragraph to the end with complications and difficulties of implementation.
I join the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, in the remarks he made. I warmly appreciate, like, I am sure, all Members of the House who have given thought and attention to the serious matters which are contained in the Bill and who have participated in the debate, the courteous and thoughtful manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, conducted the Bill's progress through the House and the way in which he dealt with issues which were put forward in amendments.
I endorse the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Underhill about my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, who applied himself assiduously to the Bill displaying skill, sensitivity and an understanding which is sometimes not possible when one is not always able to identify oneself with the Northern Ireland situation. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies succeeded in every respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, has given much thought to the matter. Anyone who has visited Northern Ireland quickly understands the problems in connection with the containment of terrorism and the need for prosperity in that sad Province. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is deserving of the warmest praise of the House for the manner in which he has carried out his work and for the report which he presented to us. He carried out the task with vigour and with a sense of the necessity to contain terrorism and the means of doing so in the context of Northern Ireland.
I should like to add to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Underhill, about the work of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. Over the weekend I read through a report in Hansard of a debate in 1977 in which my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, took part. In reading it again, it seemed to me that the way in which the noble Lord summed up the situation, which still exists today, was prophetic. The Standing Advisory Commission has carried out tremendous work and has helpfully put forward positive and constructive proposals in connection with this piece of necessary legislation.
Sadly, I must say that I am one of many speakers taking part in these Northern Ireland debates who has strongly advocated the need for Bills, which can be fully debated, rather than Orders in Council. This Bill should have been debated more fully. It certainly went through a lengthy process in Committee in another place; but, as regards the amendments which were tabled, I believe that the Bill was not analysed or taken apart as it should have been. The Government would have had an opportunity to reply. I felt that that opportunity was lacking. It does not provide much incentive for people to go through the normal parliamentary processes. I feel that the full democratic process of presenting legislation in Bill form is most desirable. However, in my estimation, what took place in relation to this Bill certainly did not meet the

19
necessary requirements as regards how the Members of both Houses ought to approach the matter. The process was sadly lacking.
I believe that the Minister said on a previous occasion that terrorism will not succeed and that parliamentary democracy will prevail. However, sadly, we have heard today that yet another man was murdered on his way to work in the Province. This Bill may be something with which we do not wish to have to cope in the sense of parliamentary democracy but, in the context of Northern Ireland, there is nothing more necessary than a Bill which provides security for people in work, and for others, in that sad community. Terrorists have murdered people. We see the mounting toll of those who have died. Let us not forget either the thousands of wrecked lives in families in Northern Ireland. And still people suffer.
Mention has been made of the talks which are taking place today. I conclude by again expressing the hope that such talks will be steered clearly towards a consensus that will enable us to put the problems back on to the stage of justice and give everyone a sense of participating in the affairs of that sad Province. I understand that three stages have been decided for the agenda. I believe that a fourth stage which is seldom mentioned—namely, a stage concerning employment, industrial development, the need for co-operation between the North and the South, and the need for education and care—should be put high on the agenda at an early moment. Those are matters for which the people of Northern Ireland are striving. Those are the important matters, not death and destruction which bring nothing but despair to the community. I hope that the talks will lift the community and create a spirit of co-operation and trust one for another.
Finally, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the Bill's passage, especially the Minister who has kept us informed throughout all stages with details and notes on clauses. Having said that, I wish the Bill a fair passage.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate on Third Reading. I should first tell the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that I most certainly agree with him that the way in which the legislation is implemented is of the utmost importance. Some of the amendments, not least those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, were precisely designed to achieve that effect. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has taken part in the debate this afternoon and I very much welcome his intervention during all stages of the Bill. This afternoon he, together with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, drew attention to areas of the Bill over which we did not agree. I shall not go into them at this stage.
But I wish to mention specifically one point on which we all agreed which was first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holme; that is, the hope that the talks going on in Northern Ireland will succeed. The last of your Lordships to speak, the noble Lord, Lord Blease, understands a great deal more than most people whom I know about how to try to make progress in
20
Northern Ireland through social, industrial and commercial as well as political ways. I was glad that at the end he referred to this and wished the talks well.
Finally, I say to my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, who has taken a great deal of trouble to be here at every stage of the Bill and is present this afternoon, that he of all people will understand that, although we keep force levels under review, as he fairly said, reinforcements are often provided in the face of specific need. He would not expect me to reply to the question he asked today. The reason, as he will well understand, is that, if there are changes in force levels at any time, it is best that they come as a surprise for all concerned. That is operationally crucial and sometimes operationally it can be a matter of life and death.
I thank noble Lords again for taking part in the debate on the Third Reading of the Bill. I commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Education (Swimming and Water Safety) Bill [H.L.]
3.42 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Amendment of Education Reform Act 1988]:
[Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 not moved.]
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Since I introduced the Bill nearly two months ago I have received a large number of messages of support and helpful suggestions from other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lord Saint Levan have taken great trouble to table constructive amendments to my Bill, although they are not here in person this afternoon. I thank them for the interest that they have taken and for the fact that the amendments were tabled in the spirit of support for the general principle of the Bill.
Unfortunately, this debate was originally scheduled for eight o'clock this evening but due to pressing commitments, my noble friend Lord Saint Levan could not make it up from Cornwall in time and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has been unavoidably delayed on business abroad. Both have asked me to convey their apologies to the House.
In his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has drawn attention to the important issue of exemptions on medical, religious and cultural grounds. Clearly there needs to be provision within the Bill for exemptions on a number of grounds, not least those outlined in his amendment. I accept that

21
the Bill is defective in this respect and I shall ensure that when it reaches its Committee stage in the Commons it is appropriately amended.
My noble friend Lord Saint Levan seeks to amend the Bill so that its provisions apply to primary schools only on the grounds that the optimum age at which to learn swimming is between eight and 11. This would considerably reduce the costs. My noble friend has a valid point and I appreciate the sentiments behind his amendment. I am conscious of the need to ensure the most efficient use of the resources available for teaching swimming.
It is for that reason that when I introduced my Bill I made it clear that initially at least resources should be targeted on a programme of teaching 10 year-old children to swim. However, I also believe that there needs to be flexibility within the legislation so that, for example, if resources permit, a programme of remedial swimming lessons can be introduced for secondary school pupils who are unable to swim.
Since my Bill was given a Second Reading there has also been a further statement of clarification from my honourable friend the Minister for Sport in an adjournment debate in another place introduced by the honourable Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. The Minister made a welcome reaffirmation of the Government's support for the principle of curricular swimming and the objective of teaching every youngster to swim by the age of 11. However, he went on to repeat his reasonable anxiety that to do that immediately would require a substantial increase in funding resources.
When I introduced my Bill, I quoted from an assessment made by the Amateur Swimming Association at a recent conference organised by the Swim for Life Campaign that the cost of teaching all 10 year-olds to swim is £4.8 million. Since that conference, the ASA's facilities consultant has made a further estimate that at least £30 million is currently being spent in an untargeted and disorganised fashion on pool hire, swimming teachers and transport in teaching children to swim. In other words, if these figures are correct, the cost of teaching 10 year-olds to swim could easily be met within the current education budget.
The only source which has questioned in principle the objective of teaching swimming in schools has been a letter in The Times from the director general of RoSPA, Julian Wethered, who repeated the widely held misconception that swimmers are more at risk of drowning than non-swimmers. The issue was dealt with admirably during the Bill's Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. However, as it is the solitary public criticism that has been made of the principle underpinning the Bill, I wish briefly to address it this afternoon.
It is self-evident that someone who has received inadequate swimming instruction and who develops a false confidence could be in greater danger than someone who knows that they cannot swim at all and avoids the water. However, the research undertaken in this area by the Royal Life Saving Society UK and the Amateur Swimming Association shows clearly that in most cases ability to swim is a critical factor in
22
reducing the risk of drowning. Many people who drown find themselves unexpectedly in the water and only about one-quarter are actually in the water to swim.
Mr. Wethered says that teaching children,
"an understanding of the dangers and a respect for water",
is more important than teaching them to swim, as though these activities were mutually exclusive. Of course it is not sufficient merely to teach people to swim. That is why both my Bill and the National Curriculum Working Group's report include commitments to teach all children, alongside swimming tuition, to understand water safety, to be aware of the hazards, to know the swimming pool users' safety code and to know about safer swimming in open water.
My Bill also stipulates that there should be national standards of swimming appropriate to a child of that age. The working group has also recognised the necessity of teaching children to swim to a specified definition. Drowning prevention, therefore, will be brought about not just through teaching people the hazards associated with water, but through a combination of education and practice comprising water safety education, safe swimming practices and supervised swimming by lifeguards. Is it not better for children to learn safe swimming practices from a qualified teacher than to learn by themselves, by trial and error?
The National Water Safety Committee was so concerned at the letter in The Times that at its meeting last week it passed a minute recording its total support for the principle of teaching swimming in schools and deploring wholeheartedly the letter from the Director-General of RoSPA. This committee, for which RoSPA provides the secretariat, comprises every major organisation concerned with water safety, including the Beach Advisory Committee for Devon and Cornwall, the British Canoe Union, Her Majesty's Coastguards, the Institute of Baths and Recreation Management, the St. John Ambulance Brigade and the Surf Life Saving Society of Great Britain, as well as the three national governing bodies of swimming: the Royal Life Saving Society UK, the Amateur Swimming Association and the English Schools Swimming Association.
To sum up, in spite of the intervention from the Director-General of RoSPA, I am delighted by the reception which my Bill has received. Since I introduced this Bill back in April, the support for swimming on the national curriculum has gathered pace. In another place my honourable friend the member for Congleton has introduced a Private Member's Bill similar to mine under the 10-minute rule, and co-sponsored an Early Day Motion welcoming the recommendation of the National Curriculum PE Working Group which has been signed by 240 Members of Parliament of all parties. The sponsors of the Bill and Early Day Motion include five former Ministers for Sport.
I am confident that, when the National Curriculum Working Group reports to the Secretary of State at the end of this month, it will reaffirm its recommendation that all primary school children

23
should learn to swim and have a knowledge of water safety skills. I hope that he will accept the report, at least in principle. Finally, I hope that my Bill, and the debate which it has generated, will have helped to demonstrate the breadth of cross-party support for the principle of teaching swimming in schools and that the Government will allow it to proceed when it passes over to another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Norrie.)
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill. I believe that noble Lords from all parts of the House have supported this Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House. Statistics have been compiled to show the number of deaths that are attributable to drowning. I do not claim that teaching someone how to swim will automatically prevent him from drowning. Some people drown as they become too adventurous and swim where they should not.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, mentioned a figure of £4.8 million. If that money were provided, it would mean that by the age of 11 every child would be taught how to swim. I believe that, if that were the case, there would be a tremendous reduction in the number of child deaths due to drowning. Unfortunately there has been a substantial increase in the number of young people who have died through drowning. There has also been an increase in the number of people in general who have died through drowning, but that increase is mainly attributable to young people who do not know how to swim. This Bill will go a long way towards remedying that situation. We on these Benches, and I am sure the rest of your Lordships' House, give the Bill enthusiastic and unqualified support.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I, too, support the noble Lord's Bill. Sadly I could not attend its previous stages as on each occasion those stages took place at a late hour in the evening. However, as my noble friend has just said, I am sure the Bill will be supported in all parts of your Lordships' House. I am an ex-teacher and I am not sure when swimming ceased to be taught. When I was teaching every primary school child was taught how to swim. That could not have cost governments millions of pounds as the PE teachers taught the children how to swim. I was a PE teacher and therefore I do not understand why these vast sums are referred to. However, it is typical of the Government nowadays to say that any provision that is referred to will cost a lot of money. This is an important Bill and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, upon introducing it. If he needs any further support at a later stage, I hope he will call on Members of this House to provide it.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I would have supported this Bill right through its passage in your Lordships' House but I was out of the country at that time. In the 1950s a big building programme took place in this country. I was enormously in favour of building swimming baths, as they do not take up much land. That was an important factor in those days. However, a more important reason for constructing swimming
24
baths is that, as a sport, swimming does not require a lot of brain power. One does not have to be clever to be good at swimming. Swimming is a wonderful sport for bringing children together, some of whom feel inferior to others perhaps because of their colour. Quite stupid children can obtain great prizes for swimming. Therefore I am strongly in favour of swimming and of the Bill.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I must apologise to the House as the rapidity of today's Business meant that I missed the first part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. I wish the Bill well. As I stated on Second Reading of the Bill, as everyone has the capacity to drown everyone should at least know how to swim so that all have a chance to save themselves. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, I, too, think swimming constitutes good exercise for everyone. Once swimming pools are constructed, they are not the most difficult things in the world to maintain. Also they do not require a great deal of land. Swimming constitutes good preventive medicine as it helps to reduce the incidence of heart disease, for example. I recommend that the Bill be given the full support of both Houses of Parliament.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Woodgrange Park Cemetery and Crematorium Bill [H.L.]
3.57 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I wish to stress to the House that this is not a Private Member's Bill; it is a Private Bill. The Bill is designed to do one thing and one thing alone, and that is to benefit the London Borough of Newham. Woodgrange Park Cemetery is an unconsecrated, privately owned and operated cemetery in East Ham, in the London Borough of Newham. Those of your Lordships who know it will be aware that it is in a serious state of dilapidation and disrepair and that it urgently needs a large amount of work done to it in order that it may once more become an asset to the local community, as opposed to an appalling eyesore.
Many people still visit the cemetery to tend the graves of their families. I hope that everyone will welcome an attempt to maintain it to a high standard. The owner of the cemetery is a private company, Badgehurst Ltd., a privately run company based in Essex. It assumed responsibility for the cemetery in its current state in 1981. During the interim 10-year period the company has been actively engaged in discussions with the local planning authority—the London Borough of Newham—to try to agree a scheme of restoration. After this great length of time —some would consider it a monstrous length of time —the discussions have made significant progress and it is hoped that matters may soon be finalised.
The restoration plans may be divided into two parts. First, the company proposes to replace the disused Victorian chapel within the cemetery with a

25
crematorium which will provide a much needed service for the local community, especially for Hindus whose religious requirements for cremation currently mean that families travel many miles, even as far as Darlington, for the cremation of family members. The proposed crematorium has been designed by the architects John Pardey and Ronald Yee. Two weeks ago it was selected as one of 150 projects from among 4,000 applicants for display at the Royal Academy's Summer Exhibition. It was granted outline planning consent by the London Borough of Newham in August of last year.
As well as a crematorium there are plans for extensive gardens of remembrance, including a columbarium, and the rest of the cemetery will be landscaped to a high-quality design, with roads re-surfaced and lighting installed. That will provide much-needed burial spaces for the community and accommodate the special needs of the Moslem population, who do not accept cremation. The owners will they £500,000 into a trust fund so that the future maintenance of the cemetery can be assured.
All those works will naturally be costly. Therefore, the second part of the refurbishment plans involves the sale of a disused portion of the cemetery for much-needed housing in the area. That will then provide the necessary finance for the cemetery works to proceed. The London Borough of Newham has resolved to grant outline planning consent for that development subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement between the borough and the owners of the cemetery.
I now turn to the question of why those plans require an Act of Parliament. It is because the provisions of two pieces of public legislation would, unless specifically disapplied to the current circumstances, render the proposed development and renovation plans unlawful. It is worth recording that Clause 8 of the Bill specifically ensures that the Bill itself will not grant planning permission for the scheme. The promoters are totally in agreement with the concept that such matters should continue to be dealt with by the local planning authority.
The Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 provides, quite rightly in my view, in Section 3 that it:
"shall not be lawful to erect any buildings upon any disused burial ground, except for the purpose of enlarging a church, chapel, meeting house, or other places of worship".
As general public law that must be correct. However, that provision would prevent the proposed housing development from taking place. The Bill therefore provides that it should be disapplied. Without that development the cemetery would remain the appalling eyesore that it is today. Various modifications and except ions to the section have on many occasions been enacted in public and private legislation, most recently by the Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981. However, the modifications of that Act are of no assistance to those who wish to see this Bill go forward.
The other provision of public legislation which the Bill specifically disapplies is Section 5 of the Cremation Act 1902. In particular, that provides that no crematorium shall be constructed nearer than 200 yards to any private dwelling except with the consent
26
of the owner. That restriction has been relaxed on numerous occasions by private local Acts of Parliament. In particular, the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1935 provides in Section 64 that Section 5 of' the Cremation Act 1902 shall in its application to a London borough council be modified so as, among other things, not to apply to the construction of a crematorium situated more than 100 yards away from any dwelling. In other words, as usual, it is one law for a local authority and another for the rest of us. Unfortunately, as the promoters are not the local borough council they cannot make use of that modification. That is why Clause 5 of the Bill has been included.
In its disapplication of those provisions the Bill is very well precedented. Numerous similar such Bills have been enacted in the past 30 to 40 years and this Bill is nothing new. That includes the provisions of Clause 6 relating to the removal of human remains, providing an alternative procedure for the exhumation of human remains to that under Section 25 of the Burial Act 1857. The Home Office approves of that procedure, and the promoters have agreed to amend Clause 6(1) so that all human remains will be removed from the scheduled land and reinterred elsewhere within the cemetery before development commences. In any event, from their records the promoters believe that the last burials in the scheduled lands took place many years ago—some 34 years ago—and it is widely believed that any such remains will have virtually decomposed by now.
A large number of petitions have been lodged against the Bill, and the considerable, and I may say commendable, efforts of the Friends of Woodgrange Cemetery to oppose it in that way should not go unnoticed. There are also petitions from the London Borough of Newham—which is bizarre—and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, although the promoters hope in due course to be able to satisfy their various anxieties. However, I suggest that this is not the place to examine the objections to the Bill in detail. That may, and should properly, be done in the Opposed Bill Select Committee in the event that your Lordships agree tonight that the Bill should be given its Second Reading.
I turn briefly to the instruction tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I, and the promoters, welcome that. We believe that they will be able to demonstrate to the Select Committee beyond peradventure that the passing of the Bill is in the public interest, in the same way as the disapplication of the statutory provisions to which I have referred have been seen to be in the public interest on so many occasions in the past. It is only right that this Bill should be allowed to proceed to Committee so that its provisions can be examined in detail.
This is a good Bill which, if passed, will mean that the plans for renovation of the cemetery may finally proceed. I therefore commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Morris.)
4.8 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for taking the House through the Bill and explaining it in detail. I should also like to thank him for the eminently reasonable attitude which he has adopted towards the Bill and towards the opponents of the Bill.
Nobody would disagree with the noble Lord that Woodgrange cemetery is an appalling eyesore and that something needs to be done about it. Indeed, something should have been done about it after Badgehurst acquired ownership of the cemetery in 1981. Unfortunately, to date nothing has happened. But I and many others believe that the measures contained in the Bill are not the way to go about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, will realise, as he has mentioned, that the Bill and the actions proposed by it have proved deeply offensive to a great many people who will be adversely affected by it and to the relatives and friends of those who are buried in the Woodgrange cemetery. No fewer than 116 petitions have been lodged against the Bill—by the residents of Tenbury Close, the Friends of Woodgrange Cemetery, the Newham Borough Council and, last but by no means least, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I have also received a petition from other residents in the area which, although it has no official locus, indicates that there is considerable opposition to the measure apart from and in addition to that expressed in the Petitions which have a locus standi.
Furthermore, the Member of Parliament for Newham, North-East, Mr. Ron Leighton, has received a host of representations against the Bill. Representations have also been made to other Members on both sides of the House of Commons, including the Father of the House, Sir Bernard Braine, who has expressed his concern about the provisions of the Bill and especially in relation to the heartache which will be caused to people who have relatives buried in Woodgrange cemetery.
I have met Mr. Leighton together with representatives of Tenbury Close residents, the Friends of Woodgrange Cemetery, officers of Newham Borough Council and a representative of the War Graves Commission. It was as a result of that meeting, going through the Bill and its implications and hearing of the concerns of all those interested parties present that I agreed to oppose the Bill on Second Reading. I do so gladly because the promoters appear to have had scant regard, at least until now, for the interests and feelings of those adversely affected by it. Nor, so far as I can see—I hope that they will change—have the promoters, Badgehurst Ltd., gone out of their way to co-operate with the borough council in coming to arrangements that satisfy the council's own requirements as the properly elected authority and those private individuals whose interests would be affected.
Newham Borough Council agrees that the cemetery is in need of work to restore it to a fit and proper condition. I appreciate that the council is dissatisfied with the record of Badgehurst Ltd. which, after 10 years of ownership, far from improving the cemetery has let it slip into further dereliction. Like other
28
petitioners, the borough council objects to the proposal for a crematorium; not only because it is unnecessary as the borough is well served by three crematoria which all currently operate below full capacity but because the proposed crematorium would be in close proximity to residential accommodation. In Clause 5(2) the Bill seeks to ride roughshod over the rights of owners and lessees by removing the protection afforded to them by Section 5 of the Cremation Act of 1902.
The residents of Tenbury Close and of other roads in the vicinity of Woodgrange have every reason to be worried about the building of a crematorium, the siting of which will be within 120 yards of houses in Tenbury Close. To give your Lordships some idea of what that distance means, it is about four times the length of the Chamber; so your Lordships will realise that the crematorium would be in close proximity to the houses.
The pollution from smells and other emissions from the crematorium will not only injuriously affect the environment and the well-being of residents but it is also bound to affect the value of their properties and make them difficult to sell. As the borough council owns residential property in the vicinity it, too, will be affected by a reduction in the value of property; so the public purse, as well as private individuals, is bound to be adversely affected. In addition, the crematorium will generate additional vehicular traffic which will have to use the shared access road through Tenbury Close, thus causing disturbance, nuisance and danger to residents. For all those reasons it is an effrontery that the Bill should propose the removal of all the rights and protection that Parliament has given to individual owners and lessees.
I now turn to other matters in the Bill. Paragraph 4 of the preamble states that the cemetery has not been used for the burial of human remains since 1946. However, evidence through historical aerial photographs and headstones on graves within the scheduled lands show that burials have taken place within the past 30 years. That constitutes a significant time difference as the numbers of the bereaved will be greater. The Friends of Woodgrange Cemetery have evidence which shows that burials have taken place in those lands since 1948—in 1969, 1976, 1981, 1982 and 1987—so some of the burials are very recent. I feel sure that Badgehurst will wish to re-examine its assertion that there have been no burials in the scheduled lands since 1948.
Furthermore, the proposal to construct housing on the scheduled lands would mean houses being built on land used for comparatively recent burials. Little wonder that anxiety has been expressed by the Friends of Woodgrange Cemetery about the rights of deed holders and the dignity of the dead. It rightly questions the demand for houses built over the remains of people buried in the cemetery in the not-too-distant past. To date there have been 20,000 burials in Woodgrange cemetery, which gives some idea of the scale of burials there. Clause 6 of the Bill is therefore insensitive and unnecessary and can only cause heartache to families involved with the cemetery. The proposal in Clause 6(11), to set aside

29
the Burial Act of 1857, is offensive and has serious implications for public health and the proper removal of human remains.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. It is petitioning against the Bill because it is responsible for caring for the graves of officers and men of the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force who fell in the First and Second World Wars. Within the scheduled lands referred to in the Bill there are some 100 war burials in common graves which the commission was not allowed to mark individually. The graves are therefore marked by a war memorial situated in the cemetery but outside the scheduled lands. Badgehurst Ltd. says that it no longer has adequate records and cannot say who is buried in any common grave, assuming that its position were known. In those circumstances, it does not seem possible for the remains of any specific war burial to be identified and removed to another cemetery for burial.
The commission therefore believes that the additional protocol to the Geneva Convention should be applied to the proposals in the Bill; namely, that disturbance of war graves should be allowed only where overriding public necessity can be shown. Certainly, in this case, such public necessity cannot be shown. As, in the view of Newham Borough Council, the cemetery is still needed for burials, including Moslem burials, it can be demonstrated that the Bill is against the public interest on that score alone, let alone the many other disadvantages connected with the Bill to which I referred.
The Bill should be withdrawn. To date the promoters have not put themselves out in any sense to meet the legitimate concerns of the petitioners. Their failure to conclude a Section 106 agreement with Newham Borough Council, which has tried to be as helpful as possible, is an indication of their determination to try to force their policy through regardless of the rights and interests of others.
In accordance with our conventions, the Bill will no doubt receive a Second Reading, which I shall not oppose. If it does, I shall move the Instruction that is set out on the Order Paper. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, will not oppose that. I have already illustrated why I believe that Acts of Parliament should not be set aside as is proposed in the Bill. Suffice it for me simply to emphasise that. Acts of Parliament passed for the protection of people, their interests, decency, dignity and public health, should not be lightly set aside unless it can be shown that it is in the public interest so to do. I do not believe that the Bill illustrates that.
4.20 p m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as is normally the case on Private Bills, the Opposition do not take an official view and anything that I say on the Bill will be an expression of my personal opinion rather than the point of view of my colleagues.
It appears to me that two kinds of issues are involved in the Bill. First, there are the issues raised by the Instruction to be moved by my noble friend Lord Stoddart. Those are the questions relating to whether
30
or not it is proper to override the Disused Burial Grounds Act of 1884, the Cremation Act of 1902, and the Burial Act of 1857.
I have listened with care both to what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said on this subject. Incidentally, I think that the noble Lord is wrong in saying that the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1935 created one law for local authorities and another for other people. As I understand it, the 1935 Act would apply to any crematorium within the London County Council area, and it does not apply in this case because the crematorium is not within the London County Council area. I do not believe that that criticism of local authorities is justified.
I also listened with care to my noble friend Lord Stoddart. He has a good case for the terms of the Instruction he is putting forward, and I hope that the Select Committee will take it seriously. But the issues are much wider than that; they concern the role of Private Bills in relation to planning conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, in moving the Second Reading, said that considerable progress had been made towards reaching planning agreement. He cited the fact that the local authority had, he said, given outline consent for the crematorium. I do not believe so. I believe it said that it was minded to authorise its officers to give consent provided that a Section 106 agreement was satisfactorily concluded.
The noble Lord referred to the fact that the authority had given outline consent for the crematorium. Well, it could hardly avoid doing so. It had no grounds in planning law not to. But the fundamental consideration is whether the Cremation Act 1902 should be overridden. The noble Lord will know only too well that the council, in its capacity as owner of some of the houses within 200 yards of the proposed crematorium, proposes to object, and therefore that planning consent, which could not reasonably be withheld, cannot in fact be implemented.
I leave on one side the question of the financial issues that might arise. I note that negotiations have gone on for a considerable time between the owners and the council for the purchase of the cemetery by the council. I understand that the owners were looking for a payment of £4.6 million, whereas the council thought that the proper payment was £1. I draw attention to the contrast between the financial probity and wisdom of the Newham Borough Council as compared with the City of Westminster, which got rid of three cemeteries for 5p. each and is now having to make offers in excess of £1 million for them. I believe that noble Lords will know that it is our view that Labour councils generally are better protectors of public funds than Conservative councils.
However, leaving that on one side, this Bill, in addition to its attempts to overturn previous Acts of Parliament, is in effect an attempt to bypass planning permission. That is the most serious consideration for the Select Committee. The borough council, as is its duty under planning laws, is prepared to give outline permission for a crematorium and for housing on

31
three of the 20 acres of the cemetery. But it is prepared to do so only if other laws are complied with and a Section 106 agreement is adhered to.
The most important point of a Section 106 agreement is that the money gained from developer's profits for the three acres of housing should be used in an agreed scheme of improvement of the cemetery. Since the noble Lord, Lord Morris, my noble friend and I are all agreed that the fundamental requirement is that the cemetery should be brought into proper use again, I cannot for the life of me see why there should be a Private Bill which in effect weakens the power of the local authority to impose a Section 106 agreement—because that is the view of the local authority and of its parliamentary agents.
The noble Lord who moved the Bill and the committee that will have to consider it should give serious consideration before agreeing to do anything that weakens the powers of the local planning authority to secure that building over part of a cemetery is carried out only when the proceeds are to be used to preserve the rest of the cemetery. I am reminded of the Irish senator who said that he was prepared to see not only a part of their glorious constitution but, if necessary, the whole of it abandoned in order to preserve the remainder. We are talking here of only three acres out of 20, but even so I hope that the committee concerned will feel that it should not allow parts of this Bill other than those that have already been objected to to go through without preserving the rights and duties of the planning authority.
4.26 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is traditional on Private Bills that the Government take a neutral stance and this Bill is no exception to the rule. The disposal of the dead is a subject that understandably arouses a great deal of concern. The Government have considered the contents of the Bill very carefully and have no objection in principle to the powers being sought by the promoters. Neither my department nor the Home Office has any outstanding points on the Bill. Our comments have been answered fully.
There are 116 Petitions against the Bill and the petitioners will have the opportunity of presenting their objections to the Select Committee. The committee will be in a very much better position than we are today to examine in detail the sensitive issues involved. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed in the usual conventional way to the Select Committee for this detailed examination.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful to the enormous number of noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this important little Bill. May I first make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—there is no reason why he should know the full history behind this, and I do not want to go into it at length—that the ownership of this private, unconsecrated burial ground came into the possession
32
of the present company as a result of a part payment of a debt. The first thing in the world they want is to get rid of this turbulent priest.
They have been trying for years and years to get the London Borough of Newham to contribute something to the local amenity. I do not want to get political about this. The only way out that they could possibly see is this particular route. As I tried to say in my opening remarks in moving this Bill, I would remind the noble Lord that there are many precedents. I do not want to repeat what I said before and I cannot look it up because the Hansard staff, who obviously want to get home early tonight, have taken my notes from me. For the life of me I cannot remember precisely what I said but that is the gist of it.
This is not a new concept. It is not a new idea. The company is not trying to profit from digging up a graveyard or upsetting the local people. On the contrary it wants to restore the graveyard to its former glory. It was in an abominable state when the company was forced to take it over, and it is trying to do its best. I think it is grossly unfair to use this Chamber at Second Reading to make points that should properly be made in the opposed Bill Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to intervene? The noble Lord is now raising the issue of the procedure of this House. Unless we who consider the matter on the Floor of the Chamber make such observations as we think proper on the detail of the Bill, the Select Committee that has to deal with the Bill will not have the opportunity to consider all the points that might be made. I think it is wrong for the noble Lord to suggest that it is in any way unfair—he used the word "unfair" and not "improper"—for us to consider the Bill in such detail as we think fit on Second Reading.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I do not want to have an argument with the noble Lord about the procedures of the House. However, it is important to realise that Second Reading debates on private Bills are designed to consider the Bills more in their generality. Otherwise, why do we have a Select Committee procedure in the first place?
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, made an excellent speech, and demonstrated precisely why that Select Committee procedure has been in place for so many years. It is up to both public and private petitioners on a Bill to put their cases admirably to a Select Committee, which, after all, is made up of Members of your Lordships' House. I believe that to be the proper procedure. It would be wrong to argue the point further. I repeat my thanks to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and who have supported the Second Reading of the Bill. It should pass as quickly as possible to the Select Committee for consideration.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
4.30 p m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee to whom the Bill will be committed that it should not allow the Bill to proceed unless it is satisfied that it is in the public interest both to set aside the protection afforded to the public in this case by Section 25 of the Burial Act 1857
34
and Section 5 of the Cremation Act 1902 and to override the effect of the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before five o'clock.