Lords Sitting of 13 February 1992

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

Religious Education: Syllabuses
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress local education authorities have made in the last two-and-a-half years in implementing Section 8(3) of the Education Reform Act 1988, which lays down that newly agreed syllabuses have to reflect mainly Christian traditions.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, Section 8(3) of the Education Reform Act introduced new requirements for those locally agreed syllabuses for religious education adopted after September 1988. All such new syllabuses must,
"reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain".
The Act does not require local education authorities to review their existing syllabuses to take account of the new requirements. However, we are aware that over one-third of local authorities have chosen to do so.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the syllabuses of Oldham, Newham and Bolton are manifestly less acceptable than that of Ealing, which has already been rejected by the Government and is now being revised? What steps will the Government take to disqualify the above three?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, complaints in regard to religious education must first go to the local level. The Government have received only two formal complaints about religious education in schools following a failure to reach agreement at the local education authority level. The Secretary of State has also received a few letters on an informal basis which pay keen attention to the matter.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say what steps are being taken to make Christian parents of Christian children aware of the means of complaint and the remedies at their hands if the requirements of the Act are not properly observed?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, a Bill is presently going through the House which extends the information available to parents of what their expectations from the education system may be. That will improve their knowledge enormously.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the Government acknowledge that many of these so-called other religions are the result of the
834
creation of the British Empire? In other words, when the British Empire was created. we did not interfere with those religions. The people of other religions would probably not have been here if there had not been the creation of a British Empire. I believe that to be a fair and reasonable question to ask the Government. Further, how does one disqualify a religion?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it is probably early days for me to be speechless. I shall try and answer. The noble Lord draws attention to an illustrious past, but perhaps I can quote from today's Radio Four programme "Thought for the Day" when a Sikh said that previously a knowledge of other faiths was desirable; today it is essential.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm my surprise that Mohammed, Buddha and Abraham were creations of the British Empire? Will she also say whether, in her view, the Ten Commandments reflect mainly Christian traditions?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my noble and learned friend brings additional dimensions to the discussion. It would be extremely foolish of me to disagree with him.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I shall not ask questions about our illustrious past nor indeed about the Ten Commandments. I should like a simple factual answer to a question about the present. How many complaints has the Secretary of State received in regard to Section 8(3) of the Education Reform Act? How is he dealing with those complaints? Are any of the complainants pursuing the matter in the courts?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as in my original Answer, I confirm that the Secretary of State has received only two formal complaints. One covers the area of Ealing, to which my noble friend referred. That is now back for revision. Informal complaints have been made; but, so far as I am aware, there are no legal actions underway.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the North Tyneside syllabus produced in 1990 is the first to use the attainment target approach of the national curriculum and devotes a whole attainment target to Christianity, giving the Bible a pre-eminent position? Do the Government agree that that syllabus represents a shining example to other authorities?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my noble friend gives good evidence in support of the Government's view that this is very much a matter for local authorities and local areas.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, do the Government accept that the importance of teaching the Christian traditions to non-Christian pupils is that it enables them to appreciate and understand Western art, which draws its inspirations so very largely from the Christian traditions?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Government agree that the more people understand the histories of every nation, the better the future of nations will be.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, last week the most reverend Primate helped to defeat the Government on an amendment to bring the further education Bill into line with the 1988 Act. On the assumption that the Government accept that amendment in the other place, what further steps will they consider to put a limit on procrastination, assuming that the LEAs are just as reluctant to implement the most reverend Primate's amendment as they are concerning the 1988 Act?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, in reply to the assumption that the noble Earl raises, I believe that it will be a matter for business in the other place.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me this? If I write a letter to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State, with a copy of the Oldham agreed syllabus, drawing attention to the fact that it falls far outside the prescriptions of his department's letter of 18th March which sets out what he would accept as being within the terms of the Act, have I or have I not made a formal complaint? In other words, is it necessary to do more or will this matter now be treated as a formal complaint?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: No, my Lords. The law requires that the formal complaint goes first through the local system.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the local authorities who are in trouble over this Act are complaining that there is a lack of Christian teachers? If that is so, will my noble friend draw their attention to the fact that the local clergy of various denominations will be very glad to step in to help if there is a shortage?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to assure my noble friend that there is no evidence of a specific lack of teachers of religion although I hear his suggestion for alternative action. I also draw attention to the fact that the recent announcement of the pay reviews for teachers should help very much in any small shortages that there are.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in many parts of the country the Churches are very grateful for the impetus for religious education which has been given by the Education Reform Act? Although they are anxious that there should be more qualified RE teachers, is the Minister also aware that they are nevertheless grateful, as in my diocese, for the number of occasions when the local Churches are being called on by schools for assistance in order to implement the measure?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for those remarks. In return, I also acknowledge the great contribution that the Church makes to the working of the advisory committees in this area.

Mr. Salman Rushdie
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps, if any, they intend to take to ensure that the sentence of death passed on Mr. Salman Rushdie by the Government of Iran on 14th February 1989 is lifted.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Iranian Government are well aware of our view, which remains unchanged, that the fatwa is an unacceptable infringement of the human rights of a British citizen. We have raised the issue of the fatwa with them on many occasions and will continue to do so.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. For the past three years from tomorrow, the Iranian Government have continued to incite the murder of a British citizen who expressed himself within the law and have forced him effectively to live in hiding and under armed guard. Therefore, will Her Majesty's Government give an undertaking in clear and unequivocal terms that, so long as the Government of Iran continue to incite terrorists internationally by means of a bounty on Mr. Rushdie's head and continue to urge his murder and that of others involved in publishing his book, there will be no resumption of full diplomatic and economic ties with that country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can only repeat what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said last year in another place:
"There will be no dramatic or immediate change in our political relationship with Iran".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/12/91, col. 257.]
We would not rule out the gradual development of closer contacts with the Iranians at the right time. For that reason such contacts can reinforce the effectiveness of the views that we make known to them —to cover the exact point that the noble Baroness has put forward.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend share my view that the only effect of the fatwa so far has been to reduce the respect in which the otherwise respectable religion of Islam is held throughout the civilised world? Does my noble friend agree that the only other result has been to make an unreadable novel into a best seller?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's first point, there have been a number of repercussions from the fatwa being imposed upon Mr. Rushdie. That is totally unacceptable.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the leaders of the Moslem community in this country are fully aware, because they have chosen to live here, that the fatwa imposing a death sentence on a citizen of this country is against the laws of this country? Will he consider arranging for either his right honourable friend or himself to

837
meet those Moslem leaders with a view to them bringing pressure to bear on the Government of Iran on this issue?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, everybody in this country is aware of the situation. Certainly the Moslem element here has had discussions and has firmly been made aware of the British Government's view.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that considerable anxiety has been expressed about this matter in the United States of America? Would it be possible for the Government to contact the American Government with a view to ascertaining whether they can do anything to assist?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord says. I shall pass it on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Earl consider a linguistic question? Is it possible for anybody, except a British judge, to pass sentence on a British citizen in this country? Is it not more correct to refer, as did my noble friend in her supplementary question, to incitement to murder? Is not the word "sentence" out of place in this matter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a fatwa has been imposed upon Mr. Salman Rushdie. That is totally unacceptable because it is an infringement of the human rights of a British citizen.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those of us who lived through the 1930s detect the same spirit of appeasement in this Government over this matter as was the case in the Tory Government of Mr. Neville Chamberlain? Are the Government really content, having achieved absolutely nothing over the past three years, for their reputation to be, as it now is, as a Government so weak and so irresolute that they have been unable to guarantee the citizens of this country their basic simple right to live and move and express themselves in freedom under the law?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I fully understand the emotion that this issue raises. However, I disagree with the noble Lord on both counts.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does the Minister accept that this is another example of bigotry and intolerance by a certain religion and that that religion follows a very clear example made by the Christian religion at some earlier date?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think we are getting on to what was discussed on the last Question. I had best not answer that one.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I take note of what has been said. However, does my noble friend agree that, while we all deplore the suffering of Salman Rushdie, it is wiser in the circumstances for us to avoid criticism of any religion, wherever that religion may be? The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, reminded us that when we were governing countries overseas we were very careful indeed not to interfere in their religion while
838
following our own religion. As this is a matter about which people get very excited, is it not better to avoid that situation occurring?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are in no way criticising religion. What I have said, and what we shall continue to say, is that the fatwa is an unacceptable infringement of the human rights of a British citizen.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that there is deep disquiet and that there would be repugnance if at any stage this Government were to withdraw from the top of their agenda, in relation to their political dealings with Iran, the appalling situation of Mr. Rushdie? Will he assure the House that that is not likely to happen?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure the House that the situation with regard to Mr. Rushdie and the fatwa and the bounty that has been placed upon him will remain very much to the forefront of our minds and in our negotiation.

Unemployment
3.25 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total number of unemployed at the latest available date.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, in January 1992, seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2,604,100.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that the figure has risen by 122,000 in one month? Is he not a little ashamed to have to announce such figures to the House? Will he also confirm that these are the worst unemployment figures for four years? They are twice as high as was expected and it is the 22nd consecutive increase in unemployment figures. Under those circumstances, is it not a cruel deception by the Prime Minister to pretend that the recession is over and that recovery is on hand? Will he urge the Government now to take proper and emergency action to reduce unemployment, including an immediate and substantial drop in interest rates?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the figures that I announced just now indicate an increase in one month of 53,000 because we are dealing with the seasonally adjusted figure. The noble Lord makes a play on the headline figure alone. Of course, this latest increase in the number of unemployed is clearly disappointing. I fully recognise the difficulties and anxieties that unemployment brings to individuals and their families. However, it is worth noting that there are 600,000 more jobs now than when unemployment was last at this level in October 1987. The United Kingdom has a higher proportion of people in work than in any other EC country, except Denmark.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend draw the attention of the noble Lord opposite

839
to the Statement on Tuesday by the Secretary of State for Employment headed "People, Jobs and Opportunity" and suggest that although, unfortunately, that Statement was not repeated in this House it contains the answer to almost everything he said?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I was holding myself ready to make such a Statement and I was disappointed not to be able to do so. I believe that it is the Government's intention that they should pay attention to the individual choice of people. I believe that we have worked hard to make the labour market flexible and that a number of jobs will be created once the economy moves.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, while accepting some of the points made by the Minister, would it not help if we injected a little honesty into the debate—if that is what it can be called? Given the length of the recession, and given that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have both said that no further action is necessary in order to have an upturn in the economy, does the Minister agree that it would be helpful to that debate if we start by accepting that, whatever happens now, unemployment will rise to almost 3 million in this year? If he accepts that, can we perhaps have some kind of serious debate?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I always want to engage in serious debate. I am glad that the noble Lord has a grasp of reality. It is a fact that the economic crisis in eastern Europe and what was the USSR has cut world trade by 2 per cent. The world trade growth in 1991 was the lowest since 1982. However, Britain is very well placed to take advantage of the upturn. Inflation in this country is below the EC average and is on a firm downward trend.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the north east of England the increase in unemployment in January was no higher in percentage terms than in the country as a whole? Does he appreciate that that is very different from what it used to be in times of national and international depression when, proverbially, if the country caught a cold the north east certainly had influenza? Will he, with me, take the present situation as an indication of the success of government regional policies in the past few years?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend puts into very eloquent words what I have tried to say on a number of occasions from this Dispatch Box.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I can guess what the noble Viscount's reply will be but I shall nevertheless ask the question. Faced with this appalling increase in the number of unemployed, does he agree that one positive way of facilitating the creation of more jobs would be to follow the advice of the CBI and increase the level of investment allowances available to industry?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, any form of tax change would have to be for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the
840
most important thing that we can do to assist the unemployed is to give them every opportunity to find another job. I believe that the policy being followed by the employment service and others in assisting people with their training, with employment action and with preparation for seeking jobs is the best we can do.
Lord Desai: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell the House how rapidly, given the successful policies of his Government, he expects unemployment to fall below 2 million?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords. The Government never anticipate the number of unemployed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the parties opposite tend to look on this country as an economic island and seem to be totally oblivious of what is happening in the countries of our EC partners where unemployment is rising? Indeed, in some of those countries unemployment is considerably higher than it is in this country. Unemployment is not just a problem of this country but a problem of the EC and other parts of the developed world.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. Rising unemployment is not unique to the United Kingdom. In recent months it has risen in most EC countries and is higher today than it was a year ago in every EFTA country and in every G7 country.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, how does the noble Viscount square the Government's belief—which he has just expressed—that training will help with the fact that the Government have cut back the money allocated to the TECs which in fact means that they will do less training?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I said that training was one of the opportunities that the Government were making available to the unemployed. It is certainly not the only opportunity. In the individual case it is not always the best opportunity. We have a range of opportunities to enable people to find jobs again.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of the job losses are taking place in the defence industries? British Aerospace, for example, has just announced 2,350 job losses and 10,000 production jobs have been lost in recent times. Is it not absurd in the present situation to believe that this can simply be left to market forces? Should not the Government be looking at a diversification programme in order to ensure that these skills are not lost?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, there are clear signs that our policies are working and unmistakable evidence that the battle against inflation is being won. What we do not want is Labour's policies. Higher taxes would destroy confidence and reduce incentives; and the minimum wage would destroy jobs, increase inflation and put up unit costs.

The Homeless: Food Costs
3.33 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response, if any, they have made to representations of the London Homelessness Forum about the cost of food for persons placed in temporary accommodation by local authorities under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, following representations from the London Homelessness Forum, revised guidance was issued to local authorities in August 1991 which stressed that where people are temporarily housed in board and lodging accommodation, authorities should aim to ensure that any food provided is adequate. Where food provision is considered inadequate, or where residents do not wish to take meals, authorities are advised to negotiate bed only arrangements.
The Department of Social Security continues to keep all social security matters under review and as part of that process, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, together with my honourable friend the Minister of State for Housing, met representatives of the London Homelessness Forum on 10th December last.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply and in particular for his reference to the guidance issued. Does he accept that the thrust of this Question is towards 28,000 or so people mainly in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, almost all of whom lack independent, self-contained cooking facilities? Does he agree that a premium—a modest premium—of perhaps £10 a week per individual would avoid a great deal of hardship?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot confirm or deny the figures given by the noble Lord. The figures that I have refer to something of the order of 13,000 family units, which might certainly equal the figure of 28,000 individuals that the noble Lord mentioned. Certainly, we are not happy that there are still any families having to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We have always made it clear that local authorities should only use this type of accommodation as a last resort. As regards whether we should introduce a boarders' premium, I think that this would signal a return to the inequalities of the old system. It would be complex and therefore expensive to administer and it would not be easy to explain to people why their benefit should then drop as a result of moving into more permanent accommodation.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 90 per cent. of bed-and-breakfast establishments have completely inadequate cooking facilities'? Can he imagine the problem for a mother having adequately to feed her small children under those conditions? One bed-and-breakfast establishment that I visited had two cooking stoves to service 18 families. Under those circumstances, will not the
842
Minister seriously consider the idea of a £10 premium which was put forward sensibly by the Homelessness Forum?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have explained that I do not think that a boarders' premium would be a sensible way forward. I also said that we are not happy that there are these people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We feel that it is up to the local authorities to enforce good standards and we are certainly encouraged by what is happening in London, where the majority of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are living, through the work that has been done by what I am told is called BABIE—the Bed and Breakfast Information Exchange—which is helping to ensure that there is some control on costs and better control on standards.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the standard of nutrition among these families and among other people living in that kind of poverty is very low indeed? What do the Government intend to do about that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is no evidence that income support levels are not adequate to provide people with a satisfactory diet.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in view of the announcement today of a further increase in the number of housing repossessions, is it not almost certain that the tragedy that we are discussing today will get worse rather than better?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I certainly do not accept that. The numbers in London and the South East in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are in decline. It is not necessary that anyone should be in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We have stressed to local authorities that it should always be a matter of last resort.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, given that, as my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs said, 90 per cent. of families do not have access to adequate cooking facilities in bed-and-breakfast accommodation; given that cafe food is costly; and given that there is well-established research showing that many of the adults and very many of the children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are suffering from malnutrition, will the Minister not reconsider his views?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall not reconsider my views. I have made it quite clear that we do not consider a boarders' premium appropriate. We think that it is up to the local authorities to maintain adequate standards and to see that, if possible, adequate cooking facilities are provided. I notice that the noble Baroness referred to the cost of cafe food. I notice also that some members of her party are attending a dinner this evening at a cost of £500 per head.

Folkestone Harbour Bill [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Price's Patent Candle Company Limited Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 12th February), Committee negatived; Bill read a third time, and passed.

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Bill [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before we say farewell to this consolidation measure, I wonder whether your Lordships would wish to hear a short opinion given by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will enjoy it. The convenor of the institute's taxation practice committee has this short but useful comment to make which I hope will be of use to those who deal in future with consolidation measures relating to taxation. The observation reads:
"The Bill amounts to 306 pages of complex legislation but it has the merit of bringing the legislation on capital gains tax together. Until this Bill is enacted, tax practitioners are faced with the dilemma of dealing with very complex legislation that is scattered throughout the Taxes Act and is difficult to find, let alone understand. We urge the Government and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to ensure that the benefits of the consolidation exercise are not lost. We recommend that those involved in progressing the Bill take this opportunity to explore the possibility of framing tax legislation in a manner which would allow it to cope more easily with the inevitable subsequent amendments. To do otherwise will result in the benefit of the newly consolidated legislation being lost quickly as further amendments are introduced in subsequent Acts".
That concludes a very worthy quotation.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I was about to express, but in a somewhat different form, some of the views just
844
put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. We have to face the fact that, although this consolidation Bill is confined to only part of our revenue law, and a rather limited part at that, it runs to 306 pages. It is full of detailed and complex legislation which will sometimes be difficult for experts, even chartered accountants in Scotland, to understand.
While I acknowledge the fact that the draftsman has done the most wonderful job of work—and it was indeed a formidable task for him—I join the noble Lord and those who have made representations to him in hoping that in future legislation of this or any other kind we may somehow achieve greater clarity and simplicity.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I do not wish to be totally out of order, but perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the best way of dealing with his complaint is to abolish the capital gains tax. That would avoid the necessity of these erudite exercises in producing the most elegant legislation on a subject which would have been better had it not been there at all.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, without wishing to decry the remarks just made by the noble Lord, I suggest that that applies also to much other legislation. It is often very difficult for us laymen to understand the tortuous convolutions of following one Act which amends another and another and so on. Perhaps the passage quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is apt for all our legislation.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but the previous contribution suggests to me that, having disposed of this mountainous task, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might also consider giving the same easement to the officers of social clubs throughout the country by consolidating their legislation soon.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say just a few words. As I was responsible for introducing the capital gains legislation in 1965, I promise to do better the next time I become Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is always very interesting to have such distinguished promises from such distinguished promisers. However, so far as concerns the general advice given by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland, I am sure that all of us would do well to take note of it. Obviously the exercise of consolidation is an important one. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have commended the quality of the consolidation. I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, that it is an exercise which will gradually, I hope, encompass the whole of the statute book.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Coal Industry Bill
3.45 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am sure that the Committee will understand if, before we proceed to deal with the amendments, I take this opportunity briefly to express on behalf of all Members of this Chamber our deepest sympathy regarding the fatal accident which took place in the North East of England causing the sad loss of the lives of two miners and serious injury to some of their workmates. I believe that I speak for all sides of the Chamber when I send to those workmates our hope for their speedy and complete recovery and when I express our deepest sympathy to the widows and children of those killed.
I can vividly remember reading the terrible headlines about the Gresford accident when I was a newspaper boy; and I was in the Doncaster Rovers football ground for the open-air service for the Cresswell disaster. Sadly such accidents do not end with the funeral; the effects do not suddenly go away. Such tragedies often scar the families and communities who are sadly bereft for a very long time.
Once again, on behalf of all Members in this Chamber I should like to send our deepest sympathy to all those involved. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to respond at this time but I believe that it would be better if he were to do so.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am grateful to the noble Lord. On behalf of the Government I should like to stress the fact that we share to the full his concern and sorrow on learning of the tragic accident at Wearmouth colliery early this morning. The noble Lord is surely right to say that the whole Chamber will wish to express the fullest sympathy for the families of the two men who died and of the seven men who were injured.
I should tell the Committee that a full investigation is under way at the colliery to determine the cause of the accident. I am sure we all hope that the findings of such an inquiry will enable measures to be taken to ensure that such a terrible tragedy does not happen again.
Lord Ezra: As someone who was involved for many years in the coal mining industry I should like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for having raised the issue before we proceed with the Committee stage of the Bill. It reminds us of the importance of safety in the mining industry. Safety standards in the British mining industry are the best in the world; but, nonetheless, such tragic accidents still occur.
846
I visited Wearmouth colliery many times during my time at the Coal Board. It is one of the best pits that we have. Its standards of safety are as high as those anywhere else. But even so this tragic accident has occurred. It means that we must remain ever vigilant and we must also bear it in mind during our consideration of the Bill.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for the kind way in which he responded to my initial remarks and to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his support. With his tremendous career and record in coal he was close to this type of accident for many years, and knows the full horror it can cause the people who are left.
Clause 1 [Further grants for workforce redeployment and reduction etc.]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) After subsection (10) there shall be inserted—
"( ) Redundancy terms offered under this grant shall not discriminate between employees in collieries, or other workplaces where the employees have resisted closures or redundancies and those where they have not." ").
The noble Lord said: I understand that Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are grouped together. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that restructuring grants are not abused by the British Coal Corporation. The workforce should be properly consulted before grants are used to close mines. The amendments must be seen against the background of the Government's closure of 100 mines in the past six years, and the fact that the Government now propose to run down the industry further to the size predicted in the Rothschild Report.
Amendment No. 1 provides that there should be no discrimination between employees who have resisted pit closures and those who have not. The prospect of losing work through a pit closure is one that no employee or his family relishes. They are not likely to welcome the decision. However, we must be certain that the British Coal Corporation does not use the restructuring grants to blackmail miners into agreeing to pit closures by threatening their redundancy payments. We seek a reassurance that such action will not be allowed.
I have worked in industry and I pay tribute to people who are prepared to resist redundancies. They do not battle simply for their own jobs but for those of the people who may succeed them when they retire. Despite the efforts of the British Coal Corporation and the Government, the closure of mines almost destroys the social fabric of some communities.
It is easy to speak from the Dispatch Box when one is not involved in an industry. But I believe that some redundancies in industry generally might have been prevented if the financial inducement to take redundancy had not been so high so as to take the sting out of it. I hope that the Government will pay regard to the sentiments expressed in the amendment.
Amendment No. 2 refers to the colliery review procedure which was introduced after the 1984–85 miners' strike to allow time for reconsideration when there is a threat of a pit closure. There are fears that

847
the British Coal Corporation is now circumventing that procedure. A number of examples of that were raised in Committee in another place (Official Report, 3/12/91, col. 11). Redundancy may be accepted at different stages of a pit closure. With the amendments we seek to ensure that miners are not manipulated into taking a redundancy package before there has been a chance to reconsider the decision to close the pit. At whatever stage in the process it occurs, the redundancy entitlement should be equally favourable. Will the Minister assure the Committee that the redundancy grants will not, and cannot, be abused by the British Coal Corporation in an attempt to blackmail employees at a time when they and their jobs are most vulnerable? I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With great respect to the noble Lord, I have tried to follow, but I do not understand why either of the amendments is necessary or appropriate. After all, it is a receding industry in which redundancy is inevitable and accepted as collieries end their useful and economic working life. The present redundancy regime with its special redundancy support is an effective inducement to retire and, so far as I am aware, works well.
The object of the clause as a whole seems to be to extend by three years (until March 1996) the period over which the Government may pay restructuring grants. Surely the amendments would spread the special support for all employees for all time, and that would be somewhat unrealistic.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, talked of abuse, blackmail or manipulation; but is there any realistic fear that there would be victimisation on any scale to warrant the introduction of the amendments and so impose an unacceptable fetter on the British Coal Corporation? I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not accept the amendments.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that the provision for miners when they retire was satisfactory and sufficient. We are not talking just about miners who are retiring. Some miners are very young. It is not a question of retiring and having a nice golden handshake. Serious anxieties were expressed in another place by MPs representing miners. They produced chapter and verse. I could read out what they said, but I do not see any point in doing so. They proved that the BCC has closed some pits and has gone outside the normally accepted code of conduct and procedure.
If the noble Lord were to read col. 10 of the proceedings of another place on 3rd December 1991 he would see chapter and verse relating to the pits where that happened. The amendment is not a spurious one to deal with circumstances that might not occur. It is a realistic amendment to try to obviate abuses that have occurred in the past. As Hansard of another place records, when miners appealed against BCC acting outside the procedure, they won their case.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I accept that the noble Lord knows much more than I about the industry. All
848
I say, with the utmost respect, is that as yet—I have listened with care—he has not made out a compelling case for imposing this fetter upon the BCC.
Lord Ezra: I fully support the sentiments lying behind the two amendments. I hope that the Minister will tell us that they are unnecessary because neither of the situations arise. I must say that in my time in the coal industry—if I may refer to that—there would never have been a case such as that mentioned in Amendment No. 1 where redundancy terms would discriminate as between those who supported a closure and those who did not. I hope that we shall receive a categorical assurance that that will never happen. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, would be satisfied with such an assurance.
Equally, in the case of redundancy terms offered at any stage during the procedure involved in the closure of a colliery, it would have been inconceivable for us to have gone back on such an offer. I assume that the people who now run BCC are honourable people who are doing so to the best of their endeavours and who would take up the same position. I hope we shall receive a similar assurance on that point from the Minister.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I should be satisfied if we could have such an assurance. Many of us are worried about the problem because the coal industry is not, and has not been since the miners' strike, run in the way that it was run under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. There have undoubtedly been instances of intimidation since the miners' strike. There is no doubt that miners have had their arms twisted. The NUM has had wage settlements imposed upon it and members of the union have had wage settlements imposed on them, whether they liked it or not.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that there are legitimate reasons for being fearful about what might happen if people decide that they wish to fight to keep their coal mine open. The amendments are designed to deal with those fears. However, as I said, I join the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in asking the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, to give us the assurances we wish. I am sure that if we receive them, my noble friend on the Front Bench will consider not proceeding with the amendments.
4 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: British Coal's redundancy terms are a matter for the corporation and not for legislation. I can nevertheless assure noble Lords that redundancy terms are calculated on the basis of three factors only: the worker's average earnings before redundancy, his overall length of service in the industry and his age on redundancy. Terms are not varied if a worker or the colliery has resisted closure. In saying that, I believe that I am giving the categorical assurance asked for by the noble Lords, Lord Dean, Lord Ezra and Lord Stoddart of Swindon. It is unnecessary for the Government to seek to intervene in this area.
Questions were raised about the procedures of the independent review body. That body is part of the

849
modified colliery review procedure which was agreed by British Coal with the trade unions concerned. If the parties to the review procedure find that modification of the procedure is desirable, that is entirely a matter for them. The Government play no part in the review procedure and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on that. The modified colliery review procedure provides the coal industry with the most comprehensive consultation process of any major industry. However, the final decision on the future of an individual pit must remain a matter for the management of British Coal.
With his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Dean, suggests that we are anticipating closures. I can tell him that provision has been made in the department's main estimate for a restructuring grant expenditure of £300 million during 1991–92. The number of redundancies that will occur and the average cost in grant expenditure are subject, as in the past, to considerable uncertainty. However, £300 million is estimated to be sufficient to cover about 6,500 industrial redundancies after allowing for the grant expenditure in 1991–92 in respect of 2,000 industrial workers who left the industry at the end of 1990–91 but did not attract restructuring grant until after the start of the new financial year. There is no anticipation in these assumptions.
I believe that Members of the Committee recognise that British Coal's redundancy terms are generous. They provide for a lump sum of up to £27,000, depending on the length of service and earnings and further lump sums of up to £10,000 depending on age. This takes the maximum payment to £37,000.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was right to say that the existing system works well. Although there are disappointments in the industry, it is also right to recognise properly that the industry is contracting and to manage it accordingly. With those assurances and that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The assurances appear to meet the case. However, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord about one possible scenario. Miners may go on strike to protect their pit from closure. During that strike they are sacked by the coal board. What would their position be? Would they still qualify for the redundancy payments?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I need to check the detailed law about that and whether or not the strike was legal.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: What would the position be if it were legal?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I shall have to check on the position. One other question which I did not answer arose out of the first debate. I was asked for an assurance that redundancy payments would not be used as blackmail. I covered that in general: there is no question of redundancy payments being abused by British Coal and I refute suggestions to the contrary. Redundancy terms will only be offered where the rundown of employment opportunities makes them essential.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord. I believe that the position is that if miners are on strike and are dismissed while on strike, they would not qualify for the redundancy. That was the position two years ago, it may have changed since then.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am grateful to my noble friend. I have got no further and perhaps to clear the matter up I should write to noble Lords.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Naturally we shall await his written reply on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Stoddart. I do not always agree with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway on trade union matters, but I nevertheless respect them. I am grateful to him for his remarks, but two specific cases were mentioned in proceedings in another place. The collieries were named, dates were given by the chief Opposition spokesman on the Bill. De facto, the action taken by British Coal was only reversed after intervention following the appeals review procedure.
The Minister indicated to my noble friend Lord Stoddart and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that he would inform us of the redundancy situation under the law regarding a miner or a group of miners on official strike. If a miner can be dismissed under those circumstances, it leaves much to be desired as regards fair trade union legislation. It would place a weapon in the hands of the employer which, if he wished to use it viciously, could be so used in almost every case where a group of workers decided to stand and fight.
However, in view of the Minister's answer and his undertaking that he will let my colleagues and myself know the full position under the law, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) After subsection (10) there shall be insertedx2014;
"( ) Before making an order under subsection (10) above for extending the duration of and increasing the limit on grants the Secretary of State shall prepare and submit to Parliament a report setting out his Department's estimate of the likely calls upon the grant in the forthcoming financial year, specifying in each case how the grant is likely to be spent." ").
The noble Lord said: I believe that we are taking Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together. They would require the Secretary of State to:
"prepare and submit to Parliament a report setting out",
what the money from the restructuring fund had been spent on in the preceding year and a report detailing estimates of what the money would be spent on in the forthcoming year. The amendments call for information about what has happened and what is predicted.
The amendments provide an opportunity to debate the Government's calculations underlying the restructuring fund. Naturally, we support the maximum financial provision for unemployed miners and their families. But we seek further information about the Government's plans. The Bill proposes to increase funds available for restructuring and redundancies

851
from £1.5 billion to £3 billion. It extends the period over which funds may be paid to cover the years up to 1995–96.
Through these amendments we seek to discover how much of the money so far set aside has been spent on redundancy payments, how much on welfare payments, how much on concessionary coal, and so on. It is important too that the Government should reveal their plans for the future and how much will be spent on redundancies. The extra sums proposed in the Bill have not been plucked out of the air, the Government must have made an estimate of future costs. In our opinion, £1.5 billion will fund at least another 30,000 job losses and between 30 and 40 further pit closures. This is in line with the figures predicted in the Rothschild Report. It does not seem likely that that is mere coincidence. This Bill asks Parliament to grant more money to British Coal. It does not seem an unreasonable request that Parliament should be kept informed as to how such sums of money will be spent. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I hope I may respectfully ask the noble Lord a question. Does not Amendment No. 4 seek to import a costing obligation in perpetuity in the process of restructuring the industry? If that is so, is that not unacceptable? As regards Amendment No. 3, is it not right that, broadly speaking, the information sought is available in the quarterly report? Is there not some difficulty in producing figures based upon an assumption? In the circumstances would that not only be improper but also somewhat improvident? How on earth could one achieve any satisfactory accuracy? With respect, I suggest that these amendments, in the way they have been drafted, do not appear to have a compelling justification.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Is the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, saying that because matters are kept under review in perpetuity nothing can go wrong? There are thousands of people in this country who have just lost their pension rights as a result of procedures being carried on in perpetuity and as a result of the failure to carry out periodical checks. I believe the views of people who are involved in this industry need to be considered seriously. They want periodical checks to be undertaken. What is more, I want periodical checks to be carried out as a taxpayer funding this measure. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for the safeguards contained in Amendment No. 1. I do not accept that people always behave well in perpetuity. Periodical checks need to be made to ensure things are in order and that moneys are being used for the right purposes all the time. If something is wrong, the longer that position is allowed to continue, the greater the likelihood that money may be used in an improper fashion. I am convinced that these amendments are valid and are worthy of consideration by this Chamber.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I appreciate the noble Lord's interest in restructuring grant estimates and expenditure. He will know that my honourable friend
852
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory in another place acknowledged that perhaps more detailed breakdowns might be useful. Very large sums of public money are involved. The noble Lord may not be aware that the department's Supply Estimates which are presented to Parliament in March each year already provide the department's estimate of restructuring grant expenditure in the forthcoming year as well as provisional figures for expenditure in the current year and audited figures for the previous year.
It may be helpful if I provide the breakdown of figures the noble Lord asked for. The figures illustrate how the £225.9 million restructuring grant was spent by British Coal in 1990–91. For redundancy and early retirement £199.4 million was allocated. Under the heading of changes of work and place of employment £15.4 million was allocated. For concessionary fuel £1.3 million was allocated. For retraining £2.9 million was allocated and for new employment £6.9 million. I believe those are the figures the noble Lord asked for.
I can see no need to require the Secretary of State in this Bill to do what he already does in the Supply Estimates for the purposes of obtaining parliamentary authority for departmental expenditure. He may also wish to note that the department's latest report on expenditure, which was published last week, gives details of restructuring grant payments made in 1990–91. Those are the figures I have just mentioned.
The department therefore already makes available a great deal of information on actual expenditure. Future restructuring grant payments are difficult to predict because they will depend on the coal industry's progress in streamlining its operations, improving productivity and winning market share. It will be misleading to provide more detailed forecasts than those already made available. I hope I have been helpful and that in future we may be able to supply more information of the kind the noble Lord needs. With that assurance, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for the detailed figures he provided. However, if we had not debated this amendment today those figures would not have been provided in the Chamber. I do not know whether they have been provided in another place. However, as I have said, I am grateful to the Minister for providing the figures today. I am not, however, convinced that what the Minister claims are safeguards are total safeguards. Nevertheless in view of the thorough reply the Minister has given, I shall respond to his request and withdraw the amendment. I shall reconsider the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) In Schedule 2, paragraph 6, line 1, after "new" there shall be inserted "or continuing").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. I hope the Minister will say what the Government's views are on it. The amendment seeks to discover

853
whether eligible expenditure under Schedule 2 to the Coal Industry Act 1987 covers expenditure to secure continuing employment of people in mining areas or whether the money is payable only if there are new jobs. We hope that expenditure is allowed under the existing legislation to allow continuing employment in existing mining areas. However, we understand from the proceedings in Committee in another place that that is not the Government's interpretation of the legislation.
Will the Minister explain why the Government might be opposed to allowing money to be spent on supporting the existing infrastructure? The example was given in Committee in another place of the possibility of investing money in new small mines in the anthracite coalfields of South Wales when the larger anthracite coalfields are closed. I hope the Minister can provide some information about that matter. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I believe the noble Lord, Lord Dean, was correct in his understanding of the debate that took place in another place. I hope I may clarify the position.
Head 6 of Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act already permits British Coal Enterprise to support job creation in both new and existing companies as long as new employment is involved. So there already is an element of support for continuing activity in the aid provided under Head 6. It would, however, be wholly wrong to use restructuring grant as a means for supporting activities that do not involve the promotion of new jobs. It would also be wholly wrong to use restructuring grant to support activities that do not show good prospects of being viable.
There can be no question of using restructuring grant as a means for subsidising continuing loss making production by British Coal. This would run counter to the purpose of restructuring grant, which is to assist British Coal in putting its operations onto a viable basis, reducing capacity and raising productivity as necessary. British Coal has in the past received production subsidies through deficit and later deficiency grants. That form of assistance has become unnecessary because the corporation's finances are now back onto a profitable footing. That represents a considerable achievement. This Government do not intend to re-introduce production subsidies. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Dean, will be satisfied with that clarification.
Lord Desai: Before the noble Lord sits down I hope I may intervene. I am speaking as a comparative stranger to this matter. There have been reports in the newspapers that the German Government give subsidies to their coal industry and that it may be possible for this Government to change their mind about the position here. If that is the case, continuing jobs which are in existence may become possible rather than subsidising new jobs. Is that area covered by the clause?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: If I understand the question of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, the answer is that it is likely that it will be the Germans who will change their practice under other legislation.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I think that my noble friend Lord Desai was referring to a matter which I raised in your Lordships' House a couple of weeks ago when an article appeared in a newspaper criticising the EC for allowing the German Government to pay a special subsidy to make their own mines competitive. German mines are by no means as competitive as mines owned by British Coal. I do not want to go into matters which are wide of the amendment because that would not be fair, but I should like to deal with the question which my colleague asked.
We asked why, if rules are imposed on us which require us to operate full market practices and to produce coal in a competitive manner, the Germans are allowed the privilege of a special subsidy to make their mines competitive. We should be fighting for that subsidy to the German coalfields to be removed. If that happened it might not be necessary for our own coal industry to be reduced to the extent that the Government envisage. That was the point at issue on the earlier occasion. However, it is not related to the amendment.
Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will be tolerant if I broaden the discussion a little in relation to grants for redevelopment, business and jobs in mining areas. I refer mainly to the large areas where coalfields have been closed and removed from the face of the earth. That is a sore point. Those areas are able to receive sums of money from the European Commissioners for the purposes of redevelopment. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, is present and he will know more about the subject than I do. Unfortunately, as I understand it, if that money is forthcoming from the EC an equivalent amount is withdrawn by the Government in another way. In other words, those areas lose money from the Government if they receive funds from Europe. Perhaps the Minister will say a few words on that point?
That is the position at present as I understand it. If the Barnsley area, for example, received £15 million from the EC to redevelop the area which had been devastated by pit closures it would lose £15 million from our own Government. That seems an odd way of encouraging people to redevelop their areas. Can the Minister spend a couple of minutes on that point?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The situation is unnecessarily complicated by reference to Community law in this context. For example, German employment laws work entirely differently from the way in which our employment laws work. One problem is that if one imports the concept of continuing employment into English employment law that would create a new concept. Secondly, there is the question of what it means. All sorts of problems would be created which are beyond the scope of the immediate problem. That is because paragraph 6 of the schedule reads:
"Expenditure on the promotion of new employment".

855
That is perfectly clear. However, if one adds the words "and continuing employment" I am not entirely sure what that means. With the greatest respect, I do not suppose that the noble Lord knows either, and Professor Wedderburn is not present.
Lord Dean of Beswick: That is why I said that it was a probing amendment.
Lord Cockfield: I merely wish to be helpful in the case of a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. The simple truth of the matter is that the substantial subsidies given by the German Government to the German coal industry are prima facie illegal under the provisions of the Treaty of Rome relating to state aids. Over the years the Commission has exerted pressure on the German Government in exactly the same way as it has exerted pressure on the British Government to reduce such state aids and ultimately to eliminate them. The right answer to the question is that where somebody is behaving in a way which is not defensible we should endeavour to persuade them to toe the line rather than copy what they do.
On the other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, relating to the question of grants to particular areas, including the coal-mining areas, there is a difference of opinion at present between the Government and the European Commission on a point of law. One would hope to see that difference resolved in a satisfactory manner, but possibly my noble friend on the Front Bench can give us the latest news, if any, on that particular point.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: When the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, put the question of German subsidies at the end of Question Time I am afraid that I gave him rather short shrift and said that there was no cause to ape the Germans. My noble friend has put it more politely and rather better. Under the general trend in Europe the German practice is wrong and is not something that we would wish to follow. As I have said on other occasions, we support the European Community's so-called RECHAR programme, which should bring real benefit to the coalfield areas. Our position is that we regret that Commissioner Millan feels unable to approve our programme. We hope that the problem will be resolved in the near future. The money derives from money which we contributed to the European Commission in the first place and we feel that we are entitled to get it back. British Coal Enterprise will be seeking to take advantage of the RECHAR programme to bolster its job creation efforts.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dean, acknowledged, that issue is rather wide of the amendment, but I hope that that reply satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord Dean of Beswick: When I moved the amendment I said that it was a probing amendment. Perhaps it probed a little further than the subject on the Marshalled List. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, for putting us right on what is happening. It is obvious from what he said that British Coal is not competing on a level playing field with Germany. We ought not to forget that and
856
should try to put the matter right and enable British Coal to compete on an equal basis with its competitors.
The probing amendment has worked. We have been given a certain amount of information on a variety of issues. I shall read in Hansard what has been said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Repeal of Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("except for privately licensed mines as defined under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946").
The noble Lord said: The amendment attempts to protect those working in the private mining sector against the possibility of relaxed safety controls. The Bill repeals the 1908 Act, which limits the number of hours which may be worked under ground. The Government have argued that the 1908 Act would not be repealed unless or until the European Community directive on working time has been brought into force. The inconsistencies in that argument can perhaps be developed later. Here we are concerned to protect the safety of those working in private licensed mines, whose safety record is not as good as that of British Coal.
Information from the NUM shows that the fatal accident rate in the UK private mining sector is 8.8 times higher than in British Coal mines. We are concerned that the repeal of the 1908 Act will leave private mines without protection because the EC directive, even if accepted by the Government, will not apply to private mines. Different working practices apply in the private sector. Workers in private mines are vulnerable to health and safety problems and require protection in legislation. Perhaps the Minister will clarify how the proposed changes will affect private mines and how their safety will or can be improved. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am at some disadvantage. The noble Lord said that the accident rate, so to speak, was eight times greater. I understood that there was not much between private coal mines and the Coal Board as regards the accident record rate. I do not feel that I can contribute anything to the discussion because, if the noble Lord is right about the figures, there is a problem.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My information and my brief come from research people who are usually totally reliable. I quoted the figure given by them. It possibly requires rechecking. However, I suspect that unless it is a typing error it is probably the correct figure.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Perhaps we could leave the matter of the figures for a moment. The noble Lord is absolutely right to be concerned for the workers in coal mines, which include licensed mines. However, it would be wrong to exclude private

857
licensed mines from the coverage of the Bill. The 1908 Act is obsolete in respect of both public and private sector mines.
The only justifiable difference for private sector mines would be over the timing of the commencement of the repeal. If the EC directive is agreed, as we believe it will be, repeal of the 1908 Act will not be implemented for private sector mines until the directive is given force in the United Kingdom through implementing legislation.
So far as concerns safety, the UK legislative system on protection of health and safety at work applies equally to private and public sector mines. The repeal of the 1908 Act will in no way weaken that system of regulation because the Act is not part of the system and is obsolete.
Turning to the statistics, the latest statistics from the Health and Safety Executive show that accident rates in private sector and British Coal mines were at virtually the same level in 1990–91. That is not to say that they have not had a worse history. There has been a welcome reduction in accidents at licensed mines over the past four years. To back that with figures, because some have been mentioned, in private mines in 1987–88 there were three fatalities compared with nine in British Coal mines, which is considerable given the very much smaller size of the private sector. In 1991–92 to date there has been one fatality in a private mine and tragically as of today seven in British Coal. A useful comparison might be made with fatal accidents and major injuries. The HSE 1990–91 annual report shows the following figures for fatal accidents and major injuries per 1,000 employed. In 1987–88 in licensed mines there were 24 per thousand employed compared with 7.1 in British Coal. In 1990–91 there were 8.6 per thousand in licensed mines compared with 8.4 in British Coal.
Let me give one final illustration. It may help the Committee to know that fatalities in British collieries have been reduced from four per million manshifts in the 1930s to one per 2 million manshifts last year. Those figures reflect improved safety consciousness in licensed mines and increased inspection by the HSE. The latest accident figures, some of which I have given, are available from the HSE's 1990–91 annual report which was published last December.
I have endeavoured to show that the amendment would not be helpful or give any additional protection to workers in licensed mines. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Ezra: I should be grateful if the noble Lord would clarify an issue about which I am not very sure. At Second Reading on 31st January he said:
"If the [EC] directive is implemented, it would apply immediately to British Coal as a public sector body".—[Official Report, 31/1/92; col. 1556]
Can he clarify how it would apply to the private mines? Would that come at a later stage?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Yes, it would come following the directive. There would have to be secondary legislation coming before both Houses of Parliament to enact that directive.
Lord Ezra: Would that therefore mean that while the 1908 Act would cease to apply to British Coal, it would continue for that interim period to apply to private mines?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The noble Lord is right.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for having given us the most up-to-date figures available. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("following the application of collective agreements concluded between the two sides of industry which are more favourable to the protection of the safety and health of the workforce.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment goes to the heart of Clause 2. The Government have decided to make this repeal but they have done so without any consultation with the workforce or supervisory staff; nor have they left the issue to be decided by the Health and Safety Executive. The Government propose instead to rely on the provisions of the EC working time directive. However, we fear that that may weaken the current safety requirements. The EC directive is a minimal approach to working hours in all industries and explicitly allows the application of tougher and specific national laws. Mines safety has special needs which should be recognised in legislation. We oppose the repeal of the 1908 Act.
In 1986 the right honourable Peter Walker was asked by the Select Committee on Energy in another place about the need to amend the 1908 Act to allow longer shifts. He said:
"If discussions took place along those lines I presume those discussions would, first of all, take place between the Coal Board and the unions to discuss what effect it would have … there would have to be discussions in the first place with the Health and Safety Commission because the safety aspects of it would be of paramount importance".
However, since 1986 the Government seem to have had a change of heart. It would appear that they are now prepared to ride roughshod over the views of the workforce and its unions. The decision also goes against the advice of the 1988 MMC inquiry which recommended, due to the safety implications, that British Coal should consult with the trade unions preparatory to making further representations to the Government on this matter. No such consultation has taken place.
The amendment suggests that safety should be a matter for collective bargaining. There should have been discussions before the repeal was proposed. There should be discussions now about what will replace the provisions to ensure that safety remains of paramount importance, as it has done for so long. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I agree with the aspirations in principle of the noble Lord, Lord Dean. I take the view that as regards safety there is a case not only for legislation but also for collective agreements. Both have a constructive and useful part to play. The status of collective agreements is already under discussion in terms of general application as regards

859
not only legal efficacy but also the recognition of trade unions in particular in the context of safety and health measures.
This is a very important matter. It has already attracted the interest of this Chamber in the context of the shore oil rig situation and the construction industry and in relation to other matters which it would not be right to take time to mention. It is an important subject worthy of sustained and serious debate in a general context. However, perhaps I part company with the noble Lord in that I do not believe that it is right to deal with the matter piecemeal today and try to import provisions into the coal industry in a Bill such as this. The matter is far too important. It requires serious debate in this Chamber, perhaps on a Bill of general application.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I find it almost inconceivable that there have been no consultations about the matter. Safety is paramount in the coal industry and in every other industry. Before I entered Parliament I worked in the electricity supply industry. That too can be a difficult and dangerous industry. I cannot conceive of any circumstance in which the Central Electricity Generating Board and the area boards would not have consulted their staff on matters such as those that we are discussing today.
There is no doubt that hours of work impinge on safety. They are bound to do so. In an era in which the coal industry is being pressurised reach higher productivity targets, and once attained to achieve even better productivity, it is absolutely essential that the trade unions and the workers' representatives at all levels are properly consulted and that reasonable agreements are reached.
If the Minister cannot give assurances about the matter, the Committee must consider seriously whether to tell British Coal that it must embark on consultations, in particular when the safety of workers is involved. Today we received a poignant reminder of the necessity for eternal vigilance in the coal mines. That vigilance cannot be relaxed at any time because always a serious accident is waiting to happen.
I believe that it is the view of Members on all sides of the Committee that proper negotiations should take place between British Coal and its employees and that proper agreements should be reached.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Does the noble Lord agree that there are problems in that we have not yet resolved the recognition procedures for the offshore oil industry or the construction industry? We cannot go bull-headed into the matter because I suggest to the noble Lord that so much has yet to be done to pave the way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That is right. I would not disagree with the noble Lord.
Lord Ezra: I have considerable sympathy for the intention lying behind the amendment. While it must be accepted that the 1908 Act is out of date and that a great deal has happened in the technology of mining,
860
the question of what is to replace the Act is of prime importance to the people working in the industry. That is not made clear in the Bill.
The mining industry has a great tradition of those involved working together on all matters affecting the methods of work, to which is related the question of safety. It can be argued that the hours laid down in the 1908 Act are no longer valid because of the changes in technology and that different hours can safely be worked. Having accepted that argument, it is right that before any changes are made there should be collective agreements which endorse that.
That is the way in which work is done in the mining industry. I used to have countless meetings on safety and conditions at work. I found it relatively easy to reach agreement because there was a common motivation. Management and workers were equally convinced of the need to work the mines not only efficiently but safely. If the Minister does not accept the amendment as it stands I hope he will say that it is British Coal's firm intention to discuss those issues with the workforce and to reach agreement on the lines indicated in the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Not for the first time today we are reminded of the vital importance of vigilance in the coal mines. I hope that Members of the Committee will accept the Government's utter commitment to making the safety of people working in the coal mines an absolute priority. However, I believe that we are entering dangerous waters. Members of the Committee opposite must decide whether they want the regulation of health and safety at work to be a matter for government or for collective bargaining.
The Government believe that the regulation of health and safety is a matter for government. There is a legislative system of health and safety protection for mineworkers in place in the UK. The 1908 Act does not form part of that legislative structure. The principal statutes relevant to health and safety are the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. There are also numerous important subsidiary measures relating to specific aspects of safety in mines. That system has been strengthened progressively throughout the years and there is no question of it being weakened. Safety for mineworkers is and will remain paramount. This Government will not take any action which threatens the safety of mineworkers.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, asked about the 1986 assurance on consultation. The reason for providing for the repeal of the 1908 Act well in advance of the implementation of the proposed EC directive is precisely to permit adequate time for consultation and negotiation on the new working arrangements between British Coal and the mining unions. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, it would be inconceivable that that should not happen. We accept that collective agreements have an important role to play. Under the UK system of statutory regulation of health and safety the employers will have to pay due

861
regard to health and safety when concluding new working agreements. The HSC can take action if health and safety are put at risk.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has valuable experience of the energy supply industry. Although I can give no better comparison from my own experience, I am advised that there are interesting analyses of statistics relating to accidents in coal mines. Statistics analysed by length-of-shift working have been prepared by British Coal and, curiously enough, they do not show a rise at the end of a normal shift. Accident rates were found to be highest towards the middle of the shift rather than at the beginning or at the end. That is not to say that it will be acceptable for British Coal or for some future private owner to impose longer shifts.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the 1908 Act has no standing in the question of health and safety at work. I hope that I have been able to reassure Members of the Committee on that matter.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having taken part in this debate because it is a very important one and I appreciate the support in a general sense from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I am sure that many of your Lordships will recall that in the not-too-distant past we have had debates on safety involving a variety of places. I myself initiated a debate about two years ago on the Channel Tunnel and also on Piper Alpha. Everywhere I went visiting sites I found the utmost co-operation among the shop stewards, the men on the site and the management, because in a dangerous situation nothing must be left to chance if you are to maintain maximum safety all the time. It is absolutely essential that the people on the site should be involved from the start, but it seems to me the Minister was saying that the Government have taken a decision to alter the rules of the game in this Bill. They will consult with the people who are affected by the proposed changes in the rules and decide what should be put into legislation.
My argument is the same as that of the people who are concerned with this: consultation should have taken place before there was any thought of there no longer being recourse to the previous Act. There are one or two amendments later that will deal with the question of a variety of—
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I wonder whether the noble Lord would give way. He has spoken of the rules of the game. But the whole essence of this debate is that the rules of the game are completely discredited, so there is no question of changing the rules. They do not apply and have not applied for some time. They are putting at risk management and miners alike because people are not observing these outmoded and redundant rules.
In a sense I would ask the noble Lord not to suggest that the Government are doing anything disingenuous here because, if anything, the Bill is doing damage. It is in a way placing miners and management outside the law. But having said that, we are bringing in something precisely because, as I said, we want to give the management and the unions time for consultation. I think I am right—indeed I am sure I am right—in
862
saying that it is not open to British Coal to change any working arrangements without giving at least six months' notice.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Is it not a fact that change for change's sake is sometimes a bad thing? In reply to an amendment I moved a short time ago the Minister gave us figures on the safety record of British Coal. I think—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also confirmed this—that it is possibly the safest mining industry in the world, at any rate in this particular type of mining. It would seem strange to move away from that situation without the fullest consultation right from the start.
I believe the Minister is sincere in what he says and that the Government are also sincere. But my point is that in a dangerous industry you have to take the workforce with you the whole of the way. At the end of the day they are the people who will be on the site and will see that the safety rules and codes of conduct operate. They know that if anything goes wrong it will be themselves or a colleague who may suffer death or injury.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I ask the noble Lord whether it is right that regarding the rules of the game the Act of 1908 is in fact a dead duck except for one thing; that is, I believe, where it refers to when overtime starts? Is it not a fact that in all other respects it does not affect safety at all? Safety is dealt with in the Mines and Quarries Act and other legislation. Therefore, the rules of the game as regards safety at the moment are covered by a situation other than the Act of 1908. Is that not right?
Lord Dean of Beswick: We may be going down a different road. The noble Lord has just referred to working hours and so on, but I received a document this morning from one of the officers of British Coal making a case for doing what the Government have suggested. However, with my history of engineering and factory working I did not feel in any way convinced. I am not a miner, although I have been down mines. It is only the people at the sharp end who fully understand the problems. There are proposals in this document which I received this morning referring to a similar working week but truncated into fewer shifts.
Anyone who has been involved in trade union law and workshop practice of any kind will know that a mine is probably the most dangerous workshop there is, even with the present safety measures. Every report that has been issued shows that longer shift working generally ends in increased accidents. You get to an optimum of about seven to eight hours in a working day and after that a person's performance and vigilance start to deteriorate. That is what is behind a lot of this.
There are all kinds of proposals in the wind: four 10-hour shifts, four 11-hour shifts, five shifts, six shifts and so on. The only way this can be resolved is by getting the representatives of the workers and the workers themselves involved. After all, all pits are not the same. I am sure the noble Lord would understand that some of them are quite different and they vary in

863
complexity. It is sad that what appears to have taken place is to sour the workforce who are affected by the legislation.
However, I am grateful to those of your Lordships who have made a contribution to this debate. It is a very important one indeed bearing in mind what was said at the commencement of formal business. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. We shall look at this further and may decide to come back to the subject later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("after alternative measures specific to the mining industry have been laid before Parliament and approved.").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move this amendment following the concern I expressed at Second Reading about what was to follow the repeal of the 1908 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, referred to the fact that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State had said in another place that he would not implement the repeal of the 1908 Act until either the EC directive on working time comes into force or, if agreement is not reached on the directive, an alternative United Kingdom measure is introduced.
My concern is twofold. First, having looked at the draft EC directive, I must say that I do not believe it is entirely relevant to underground mining operations. It deals with working conditions everywhere in industry. Indeed, I have heard from British Coal that it too has reservations, particularly in regard to what is said about night working. That is reservation number one.
Reservation number two is that, if the directive does not materialise and the Secretary of State has to make his own decisions, then they will be made and will replace the 1908 Act. But I feel that in either event these matters should come back to the House and we should have the opportunity of debating this. Otherwise, we are left in a situation in which, once this Bill leaves us, we have agreed to the abolition of the 1908 Act and have left it entirely to chance, as I see it, as to whether the EC directive (which may or may not be amended between now and then) or something that has yet to be devised by the Secretary of State for Energy is put in its place. I do not think that that is a satisfactory arrangement.
Whether the wording that I have proposed is appropriate, or whether the Minister can give some assurance that these matters will come back again to the House so that at least we are aware of what is going on, I do not know. I shall certainly not insist on my amendment if the Minister can explain how, under the existing procedures, we can come back to this matter so that we can know what is proposed to take the place of the 1908 Act and express our views on that. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Again I share in principle the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Truly I am not trying to be a difficult, fine print
864
lawyer, but there are difficulties about this amendment. What are these specific measures? Ought they not to be identified? I do not think that any government could accept the amendment in this form. But that does not mean that this is not an amendment of the greatest possible import. If some assurances can be given that satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the Committee, the amendment will have served an important purpose.
I should have thought that it is common ground that we all agree that the 1908 Act should be repealed. The noble Lord nods his head. I am grateful. I know so little about this industry, but it seems right that it should be repealed. If it is to be repealed, and if the directive applies to the mining industry, then there must be time for both sides of industry to consider in consultation how it is to work. At all events, there will be some form of directive which will apply to the mining industry, and which would have to be the subject matter of consultation.
However, as the question of safety is governed by the Mines and Quarries Act and other primary legislation, is it not preferable to concentrate on an assurance that perhaps could be given by my noble friend the Minister that these matters will be kept under vigilant review especially when, as we have been reminded today, one really cannot concentrate on any particular aspect? For example, long hours. Are long hours the evil if in fact there are properly organised rest periods? Are there not certain mines where it takes a long time to get to the work face, where a regime would be totally different from the regime in another type of mine?
As it is common ground that the 1908 Act should go, I suggest that it should go, with the issue of how the matter is dealt with left to the good intentions of any government.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I support the amendment. It is a probing amendment asking what are the Government's intentions. It would be a foolish person who discounted the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on the question of safety in mines and all that that entails, bearing in mind that he was chairman of the coal board in its halcyon days when it was effectively run with a fellow Lancastrian of mine as president of the union, Lord Gormley, who, had he carried on, I am sure would not have pressed the self-destruct button as somebody else did.
Having said that, I think the Minister would be wise to take seriously the reservations that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about what the Government really mean, and also the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. We, in principle, support the amendment and the objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is trying to achieve.
Lord Rochester: I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ezra. It is my understanding that the working time directive comes under the Treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act, and it is open therefore to the Government to veto it.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: No.
Lord Rochester: If I am wrong no doubt the Minister will correct me, but that is my understanding. If that were the case, then we should find ourselves in a most unsatisfactory position. Quite understandably in my view, a number of employers are urging the Government to exercise their veto over the directive. For instance, in the case of the chemical industry, of which I have some experience, the provisions in the directive relating to night work and shift work would have a deleterious effect on that industry, dependent, as it is, so very much on continuous process work.
If my understanding is correct, therefore, we shall possibly be left with a position where the directive does not operate in our case and where we have committed ourselves, if this clause goes through, to a situation where the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908 ceases to have effect. There will then be no regulations governing the operation of working hours in the coal industry. If that is so—and I am open to correction—then it is a serious situation.
Lord Ezra: I should like to take up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in his important intervention. He made the valid point that conditions in pits differ, and that you must leave it to the people on the spot. If the Government were proposing to repeal the 1908 Act because of the fact that safety is fully catered for, that conditions differ in pits and therefore different working hours ought to apply, and that there would be nothing to replace it, that would be an issue that we could debate. But that is not the issue that is put before us.
We are being told that the 1908 Act is to be replaced either by a directive—which, as presently drafted, in my opinion is not satisfactory—or by some other measures that the Secretary of State will prepare and impose. My contention is that if that is the case then, whether the directive or measures to be prepared by the Secretary of State are to replace the Act, we ought to have an opportunity to look at them and decide whether we think they are suitable or not.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I understood my noble friend the Minister to say—I may have got it wrong —that if the directive were to be implemented it would be brought before the House for domestic legislation. It would be implemented by some statutory instrument or primary legislation. I may be wrong, but I understood that that was the position.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: As has been said, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has a vast experience of the coal industry and, as Chairman of the National Coal Board, had direct experience of the 1908 Act in practice. Perhaps I can clear up one specific matter. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that the UK cannot effectively veto the directive. There is qualified majority voting under the Treaty of Rome legislation. Nor would the directive be affected by anything agreed or said at Maastricht.
Lord Rochester: With the leave of the Committee perhaps I can interrupt the noble Lord. It is my understanding that it would not be dealt with by qualified majority voting but would require unanimity.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Obviously our advice is at odds. Luckily there is time to sort the matter out. I shall look into it and ascertain which of us is right. I shall gracefully give way if the noble Lord is correct.
The amendment proposed would require that replacement UK legislation on working time, specific to the coal industry, should be in place before the repeal of the 1908 Act is implemented. As I understand the noble Lord's position he is not questioning the need for the 1908 Act to be repealed. He accepts, I believe, that the 1908 Act is outdated and widely ignored. He agrees that it is not satisfactory to have on the statute book law which is being broken daily by both miners and management—because it binds on both. He also appears to accept that the present day legislative provision for the protection of the health and safety of our mineworkers is satisfactory in broad terms.
The noble Lord has a sincere concern for the health and safety of Britain's coal miners, as we all do. He tabled the amendment that we are discussing because he believes that without replacement UK legislation specific to the coal industry the safety and health of miners would be at risk to the demands of mine owners, present and future.
I should like to explain why the Government's proposals will not introduce any such risk. I hope also to persuade the Committee that the amendment will not add anything to the statutory protection of the safety of miners. The most important point that I must make is that the 1908 Act is not part of the legislative system that protects the health and safety of mineworkers. The principal statutes on which our very extensive system of protection is built are the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974—I am sorry to repeat this but it is important to place it on record—and the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. Those Acts and subsidiary legislation under them will be continuing in force. The vital protection that they afford to miners is not to be changed.
I should like to quote from a recent letter from Sir John Cullen written to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I have shared the information with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Indeed, I should like to take this opportunity to thank him for taking the time to discuss aspects of the Bill. Sir John is chairman of the Health and Safety Commission which oversees the work of the Health and Safety Executive. The executive enforces the health and safety legislation in our mines through the mines inspectorate. Sir John says that the 1908 Act,
"is not a relevant statutory provision under the Health and Safety at Work Act".
He adds that the current Bill's proposals are unlikely to lead to a reduction in standards of health and safety. He finally points to the powers that the executive has under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to take action if excessive hours are being worked, leading to adverse effects on health and safety in mines. He says that the executive will not hesitate to take action where that is necessary.
In summary, Sir John Cullen has confirmed the Government's view that the 1908 Act is not part of the existing system of statutory protection for the health

867
and safety of miners and that its removal will not affect that protection. Moreover, he says in his letter that the 1908 Act is in any case difficult to enforce. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act provides the Mines Inspectorate with the powers that it needs in order to take action if excessive hours of working threaten health and safety. Those statutory powers are there and will not change. The noble Lord's amendment would not add to the protection of health and safety that the present statutes provide.
I am not clear what view the noble Lord takes of the work of the mines inspectorate; we have not discussed that. The Government's view is that the inspectorate deserves great respect and support in the vital work which it does. Over recent years it has been active in enforcing improved safety standards in the small licensed mines and the accident and fatality statistics have shown much needed improvement in that sector as a result. In British Coal's mines accident and fatalities continue their long-term trend of decline—in spite of today's tragedy—and the mines inspectorate has had no small part in ensuring that outcome. The Committee will have noted that the Health and Safety Commission and Executive and the mines inspectorate are not asking for new UK legislation to replace the 1908 Act. They believe that they have the necessary statutory backing to take action on excessive hours.
The amendment would not add to the protection of the health and safety of mineworkers. With regard to the regulation of working time, the new EC directive will introduce new limits and will guarantee rest periods. That will provide a new framework within which hours of work can be settled by negotiation between employers and trade unions. The Secretary of State for Energy has given an assurance that there will be no gap in the provision of working time legislation and I repeat that assurance today.
I can assure the noble Lord that whether or not the 1908 Act is replaced by the EC directive or by a UK measure, there will be appropriate opportunities for the proposed replacement to be considered by both Houses of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, sees a need for legislation on working time that, in contrast to the EC directive, would be specific to the coal mines. It follows that for such legislation to have any point it would have to be more restrictive than the EC directive. It is important that the Committee should be aware that the 48-hour limit on the working week proposed in the EC directive will place a tight limit on underground working in some mines, as the noble Lord is aware. It will be particularly restrictive at mines where miners have long journeys to make underground and where some weekend working is necessary to keep mines in operation. UK legislation which is more restrictive than the EC directive would discriminate against such pits. The EC directive allows just about enough flexibility for the British deep mine industry to operate successfully; and noble Lords will be aware that our mines have to pursue coal
868
developments at increasing distances from the shaft bottoms as they progressively work out their coal reserves.
I have sought to illustrate that the amendment is unnecessary. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that it may be defective, but we are not making an issue out of that. However, I venture to suggest that it may be damaging. I have gone to some lengths to explain the Government's view to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I hope I have given some satisfaction to the noble Lord and to the Committee in general. It is an important issue. Of course, I can make a commitment for my department to keep an open door at any level so that the issue can be further discussed if the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and others are not yet satisfied. Meanwhile, I hope he feels able to withdraw the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Before the Minister sits down perhaps I can say that it was kind of him to read the letter from the chairman of the Safety Commission. However, it may save my moving the last two amendments if he can give the date of the letter.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The letter is from the Health and Safety Commission addressed to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mr. John Wakeham, and is dated 7th January 1992.
Lord Dean of Beswick: That means that the letter was received after the Bill had passed through its stages in another place. I do not blame the Minister, but it is a little naughty. It looks as though he has recruited an ally who was not in the dock in another place. I shall withdraw my next two amendments but I can assure the noble Lord that, on the basis of what he has just said, we shall be returning to this subject at a later stage.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: It is entirely proper and there is nothing sinister in my right honourable friend seeking clarification on a point of such importance. I hope that I did not give any impression—
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am sorry, but the contents of that letter are very profound; they are not peripheral to the argument but central to it. That letter was not seen or quoted—it had not been received—when another place was dealing with this Bill. To me that smacks of sharp practice. I shall not be moving my last two amendments tonight but we shall return to them at Report stage.
Lord Ezra: I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, for the time that he gave me to speak to him and his officials about this issue and also for his painstaking reply today. I know that he and everyone else in the Committee agrees that we must be very careful about the conditions of work in the mines which, inevitably, are associated with questions of safety. If mine workers work excessive hours they are at risk. We have been assured that the question of

869
excessive hours is fully catered for by the safety of mines inspectorate. I am prepared to accept that and I pay tribute to its work.
I propose to withdraw my amendment following the assurance given to me by the Minister that we shall have full opportunity for seeing and debating whatever replaces the 1908 Act, whether it be the directive as finally amended and promulgated or provisions made by the Secretary of State. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may remove a slightly sour taste which has arisen concerning the letter. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that the letter was received before the Report stage.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I was going to rise anyway because I believe I went a little over the top. I wish to withdraw the words "sharp practice". However, the matter was dealt with in a way which was misleading. I want to make it absolutely clear that that was not done by the Minister.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Citation, repeals, commencement and extent]:
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund Act,

Stamp Duty (Temporary Provisions) Act,

Severn Bridges Act,

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act,

Social Security Administration Act,

Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act,

Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act,

Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act,

Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Act,

British Railways Act.

Access to Neighbouring Land Bill [H.L.]
5.25 p.m.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Murton of Lindisfarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
870
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Aylestone) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Access orders]:
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("against that other person").
The noble Lord said: This amendment makes no change of substance to Clause 1(1) of the Bill. However, I put forward the amendment in order to meet a point raised at Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Coleraine who suggested that there is some lack of clarity in the Bill as to who is to be the respondent to the application. The amendment seeks to bring out in Clause 1(1) even more clearly than it does at present that the respondent is the person against whom the application for an access order is made. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: On behalf of the Government I entirely support this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) An application for an access order made for the purpose of carrying out works to the dominant land may also relate to the carrying out of works to the servient land.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 which are consequential to it. I wish to make it clear that I am not speaking to Amendment No. 6 which is a separate and small drafting point. Amendment No. 2 seeks to provide for what seems to me to be an important and practical need for access which does not appear to be covered by the Bill and which, as far as I am aware, was a point which the Law Commission did not have drawn to its attention and did not address when it prepared its report and the original draft Bill.
The amendment is intended to enable the dominant owner of land which is infected by dry rot to have access to his neighbour's property, the servient land, which is also affected by dry rot. In this case it is not just to carry out repair works to the dominant land but also to carry out remedial works within the neighbour's property. If the court found that this work on the servient land was reasonably necessary for the preservation of the dominant land, the court could make the order. I need not remind the Committee that there is no point in remedying part only of an outbreak of dry rot.
It may be asked why this provision should be necessary. Surely, no neighbour would leave dry rot untreated in his own property. I believe that that is possibly to take an unduly rosy view of the way people behave. I recently had experience of a block of flats where four lessees were buying out their landlord's freehold interest for £1. They did so because the landlord, a company resident overseas, had allowed dry rot to spread within the building. The reversion which it owned (it owned nothing else) was valueless so there was no point in trying to sue the landlord. Unfortunately, the top floor flat had been sublet for a year by the long lessee of that flat who was sharing in the buy-out. Dry rot affected that flat also. The

871
sub-tenancy did not reserve a right for the long-lessee, or the freeholder, to come back into the flat to repair dry rot or to carry out any other repairs. The tenant was not inconvenienced by the dry rot which was behind the wall and he saw no need to be obliging.
I understand that by the time the matter was finally resolved the cost of eliminating the dry rot and treating the structure had risen from around £10,000 to nearer £50,000. That is the kind of case which could be aided if an amendment along these lines were passed. The new freeholders might have been able to obtain a direct access order against the sub-tenant. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: I admire the way in which my noble friend Lord Coleraine has put the case so very well with these amendments. While everyone agrees that the problem to which he has drawn attention—namely the spread of dry rot which affects neighbours' properties—is serious for the unfortunate persons whose properties are touched by it, I do not believe that the answer is to be found in these amendments, sadly though I say that.
It is fundamental to the scheme recommended by the Law Commission and now provided for in the Bill that, in the words of the Long Title, it enables,
"persons who desire to carry out works to any land which are reasonably necessary for the preservation of that land to obtain access to neighbouring land".
The scope of the Bill has been deliberately confined in that way. My noble friend wishes to extend the Bill, in Clause 1, to enable the applicant to obtain access to neighbouring land to carry out works to the neighbouring land itself, as well as to his own land, as he has pointed out in recent correspondence. But I am afraid that that does not help in this respect.
Although, as I have said, the spread of dry rot from one property to another—for example, in the case of adjoining properties—can be a serious problem, there are remedies to hand under the existing law. The tort of nuisance provides a remedy which enables persons to bring an action against a neighbour who omits to take steps to stop the spread of the fungus. I suggest that it is no different from the situation of tree roots which encroach under buildings and may threaten to cause, or actually cause, damage. Unlike the situations for which the Bill is intended to cater, my noble friend has not, to my mind, highlighted a gap in the existing law which needs to be filled.
If an applicant were to obtain an access order to enable him to enter the respondent neighbour's property for the purpose of treating the dry rot on the applicant's property, it is to be expected that many reasonable respondents would, in their own interests, agree to carry out the necessary work to deal with the problem on their own property. A respondent who refused to do so could be threatened with legal action.
Although my noble friend Lord Coleraine has moved a number of amendments to deal with the consequences of the proposed extension of the Bill in Clause 1, the change he is proposing would affect
872
other parts of the Bill; for example, Clause 3(2). For all those reasons I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
Baroness Elles: I rise to support Amendment No. 2. I find it difficult to accept the reasoning of my noble friend Lord Murton. I must declare an interest in that I have a property to which dry rot had spread from the house next door. I had the dry rot in my property repaired, which affected four other tenants who had bought flats within the property. That was in 1988. The landlords of the house next door have so far refused to repair the dry rot in that adjacent property. Consequently, two of the people who have purchased flats in my block are now unable to sell them because they cannot get a guarantee of no more dry rot in the neighbouring property. They have been put to grave disadvantage in that they cannot let their flats and they cannot sell them.
I do not think that the remedy which the noble Lord, Lord Murton, has indicated is, in fact, available to the owners of those flats. I can see no other way of at least being able to threaten a neighbour who has dry rot and who has taken no action for four years, thereby depriving his neighbour of the right to sell his property, unless something of this kind goes into the Bill.
I very much welcome the amendment in order to draw attention to the problem. It may be that, at the end of the day, inserting these words in the clause is not the right way of dealing with the matter; but the fact remains that this very serious situation is occurring throughout the whole of London where, as we know, there are many properties with dry rot and where landlords refuse to repair properties because they do not wish to spend money on this kind of work. That affects the next door properties which, in my case, is the dominant property. It is putting a great hardship on the owners of flats or houses which are the dominant properties.
In principle, therefore, I totally support my noble friend Lord Coleraine but perhaps we shall have a satisfactory answer from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor as to how one can take action against people who refuse to spend money to make necessary repairs.
Lord Wilberforce: I should like to support the amendment, at least to some extent. There is clearly a practical problem here. It may be a larger problem than we had thought, particularly having heard what the noble Baroness said. It seems to be one which requires to be addressed. At the same time it is quite clear, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Murton, that insertion of the amendment would rather dislocate the framework of the Bill as a whole and involve consequences.
I venture to draw attention to Clause 1(2) (a) which would apply to this situation. The order would only be made if,
"the works are reasonably necessary for the preservation of the whole or any part of the dominant land".
An access order could not be obtained just to clear up dry rot on a neighbour's land. The court would have to be satisfied that to do so is necessary for the

873
preservation of the dominant land. That is quite a substantial safeguard and limitation of the risk to the respondent.
There is always the safeguard of the court. One would have to go to court and the court would look at it to see what is reasonable, in the interests of both parties. If it is not reasonable and the servient owner makes an objection, then obviously an order would not be made. With respect I suggest that we are fairly near the point where something like the amendment of the noble Lord could be accepted. There are safeguards already in Clause 1(2)(a) and in the general discretion of the court. It may be that other safeguards are necessary as the noble Lord, Lord Murton, said. However, I hope that the amendment will not be rejected out of hand. There certainly seems to be something in it.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: I reply to the noble and learned Lord with some trepidation. Surely the existing law of nuisance provides a remedy which enables persons to bring an action against a neighbour who omits to take steps to arrest decay?
Lord Wilberforce: That requires an action of nuisance, in most cases. I quite see the point, but it would require a strong case to bring a common law action of nuisance.
Lord Mishcon: I was hoping, with great humility, to clarify the legal situation, but sitting opposite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as I do, it will be for him to clarify and I am sure that the Committee will accept his view of the law in preference to mine. However, if we are really to consider, as the noble and learned Lord just said, that an applicant would in any event have to go to court in these circumstances in order to invoke a legal right, it is extremely relevant to see whether the same course of action is not already available.
I can well see that if we were imposing a remedy which did not require an application to the court that would be very sensible, though quite obviously completely impracticable because—to use the example given—we are dealing with someone who apparently has refused to remove his dry rot the danger of which is coming onto adjoining premises.
When I was a student I remember so well having hammered into my mind the principle of Rylands and Fletcher which was the moving of a dangerous substance onto a property which was not permitted according to law. Indeed, an injunction and damages could be obtained.
I rise to speak only because I feel there is a remedy in law in this situation. Why in those circumstances duplicate matters by putting into the Bill a provision which, as the noble and learned Lord willingly admits, means going to the court—so we have not cut out the cost and trouble of that —when in my view the court could make an appropriate order, either by way of an injunction in a suitable case restraining the spread of it, or indeed by way of some action for a nuisance, and deal with the matter in that way?
The Lord Chancellor: This Bill was constructed by the Law Commission in order to deal with the
874
problem of requiring access to neighbouring land in order to perform work for the preservation of the subject land. The whole Bill has been constructed with that in mind. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said on earlier occasions, a quite important change.
It may be undesirable to attempt to make the Bill carry too much on its shoulders. I accept that my noble friend Lady Elles had a problem and that my noble friend Lord Coleraine has a related and perhaps even more difficult problem in that the owner of the premises may have had difficulty in getting at somebody who had resources sufficient to provide for this difficulty. It is highly likely that in many of these circumstances there will be a remedy at common law in an action for nuisance in respect of allowing the fungus of dry rot to spread. Of course not only dry rot would be covered by the amendment; there might be other types of problem as well.
I think that some more elaborate machinery may be required. After all, if one got in under this system one would be repairing one's neighbour's land and possibly removing quite significant amounts of dry rot. Who would have the benefit of that? There is nothing in the Bill to allow the person who does the work, having obtained access under the Bill, to obtain compensation for the benefit that he or she has conferred on the owner of the other land in respect of which the work was done. The whole object of the Bill is for preservation of the land of the first owner, the applicant, under the Bill. Therefore, while I accept that there are problems in this area, I would caution against trying to use this Bill to carry too much weight in case, having done that, we may damage it as a vehicle for dealing with the particular problem with which it was designed to deal.
That is an urgent problem which a number of your Lordships have recognised. I feel therefore that the best may be the enemy of the good in this situation. We may make it too elaborate. I certainly do not claim to have thought out all the possible implications of my noble friend's amendment. Certainly, as he said, the Law Commission did not have its attention directed to this point. We are dealing with a quite difficult area of the law. I am happy to direct the Law Commission's attention to this problem but I think it may be unwise to use this Bill as the means of solving it.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful for the support given to the amendments by my noble friend Lady Elles and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. I appreciate that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would feel it undesirable at this rather late stage to make the Bill carry too much on its shoulders. It may well be that these amendments would seek to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the case of Rylands and Fletcher. Although my experience of law school perhaps took place after his, nevertheless I would not suggest that my memory of the law is any better or worse than his. It is my recollection of Rylands and Fletcher that it is related to cases where people accumulated things on their land—water in a reservoir or something of that kind. I do not

875
necessarily think that it would apply to dry rot infesting land. I find it difficult to see how the court could grant an injunction restraining the spread of dry rot under the rule in Rylands and Fletcher or any other rule, although I should like to think further about the point that an injunction might be made to compel the servient owner to remedy the rot. So far as concerns the action for nuisance, that would be bolting the stable door long after the horse had fled, although it might be that the injunction combined with the action for nuisance could do it.
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for saying that he would refer my point to the Law Commission. There is a problem here and some such remedy as the Bill confers may well not be a superfluous second remedy but a useful adjunct to whatever existing remedies there may be. I should like to think about this further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: I hope very much that for the ease of the sensible discussion of my amendment the Committee will permit me to speak also about Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. I was troubled at Second Reading by the fact that the Bill imposes upon the court a mandatory duty. It is contained in Clause 1(2), the words being:
"On an application under this section, the court shall make an access order".
No discretion is left to the court and it is mandatory provided certain conditions are applicable to the particular case. Together with your Lordships I looked at Second Reading at Clause 1(3), which states that the court should not make an access order,
"in any case"—
this was the sole limitation—
"where it is satisfied that, were it to make such an order, the respondent or any other person"—
I read these words slowly on purpose—
"would suffer interference with, or disturbance of, his use or enjoyment of the servient land".
I emphasised those words at Second Reading because there was nothing there—and I instanced this case—about hardship to a person let alone the question of anything that might happen to land. I ventured to bring before your Lordships the case of someone who in the middle of a nervous breakdown suddenly found himself or herself before the court with all the ingredients necessary for the applicant to prove his case and with the judge bound by a mandatory order, unable presumably to do anything other than possibly think about compensation, conditions or whatever it may be.
The noble Lord, Lord Murton, has been kind enough to take account of what I said at Second Reading and as a result I notice that there is an amendment which now adds to Clause 1(3) the further provision that an order should not be made if,
"the respondent, or any other person (whether of full age or capacity or not) in occupation of the whole or any part of the servient land, would suffer hardship".
I cannot ask for more. I tabled the amendment only to insert the word "may" instead of "shall" in order to provide for such a contingency. In the hope that Members of the Committee will approve, as I certainly do, of Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, I very willingly beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wilberforce: I had hoped that we would be able to discuss the two amendments together before the noble Lord made up his mind. He indicated a willingness in a certain hypothesis. I very much hope that the Committee will still give consideration to the noble Lord's amendment. I do not like imposing mandatory duties on courts. I do not like the conception of a sort of "slot machine" in which one inserts conditions—namely paragraphs (a) and (b)— and if they both go in then it makes an order, but if they do not both go in then it does not. It seems to me to be derogatory and unsuitable to a county court to say that an order must be made if (a) and (b) are satisfied.
I should have thought that the Bill would be in a much better spirit, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, if it had the word "may" included. One never knows if a county court judge may wish to adjourn the case to allow negotiations to take place to introduce modifications. A cast iron obligation to make an order straight away seems to be inappropriate. However, if the noble Lord still insists on withdrawing the amendment, I cannot object. Certainly, the point is largely met by Amendment No. 5. But even if Amendment No. 5 is accepted, I venture to suggest that the word "may", thus leaving a discretion, is better than the word "shall" which imposes an obligation.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): I should point out to Members of the Committee that the Question has not yet been put in respect of Amendment No. 3. I very much regret that fact.
Lord Mishcon: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may now move my amendment. I hope that Members of the Committee will, with their usual kindness, forget what I said previously about the possibility of withdrawing it. I have been given much courage, as is usual with me, by the noble and learned Lord's support. It may be useful in the circumstances for the matter at least to be debated in the context put forward by the noble and learned Lord. On Second Reading I put the point that I thought it wrong to fetter the discretion of a judge. I did so in general terms. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps before my noble friend expresses his view on the amendment, it may be convenient if I were to say a word or two about it. One of the necessities is to do what one can to frame the Bill so as to, so far as is possible, avoid unnecessary litigation. One of the requirements for the avoidance of unnecessary litigation is that the rights that people have should be reasonably clearly defined.
The nature of the right involved here of access to neighbouring land is a new one. In drawing up the Bill, it is very clear that the Law Commission had as one of

877
its stated objectives that it should be possible for the parties or their advisers to know in advance whether or not an order would be made on a given set of facts, generally speaking.
The proposal would make it less clear to an applicant whether the court would be likely to make an access order and litigation would increase. From the point of view of my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce and that of the court, I perfectly understand that, once an application is put forward, there is a great deal to be said for having a discretion so that the court has a completely free hand. But, on the other hand, I believe that what the Law Commission had in mind was the desirability to try to state the circumstances in such a way that in at least the majority of cases people would be able to ascertain what was likely to happen without going to the court. Therefore, the party who did not wish to give access would know that, if necessary, the other party could go to the court. That would persuade him or her to grant the access.
We have before the Committee Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 which are intended to reflect the worry expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on Second Reading. I wonder whether this is the best way of meeting that anxiety; in other words, rather than giving the court the discretion, seeking to deal with the real point by giving the court a right to consider the question of hardship in particular circumstances. If the parties investigating the situation before a case is brought could see the possibility of hardship, they would know that there was a question of whether the order would be granted. There is no question of hardship. If the matter was straightforward, people would know that the court would in fact grant the order.
Therefore, to alter the present wording, thereby making the granting of an order a discretion, would I believe, at least to some extent, depart from the stated object of the Law Commission. In such a case, where we are trying to keep matters as simple as possible, I feel that it would be wise to try to define as clearly as this Chamber can in advance what the conditions would be for the grant of the order.
Lord Mishcon: I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for allowing the matter to be discussed. For my part, I am still prepared, with the leave of the Committee, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 21, after ("order") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for taking such an understanding view over the question of his amendment, and being prepared to consider that which seems to me to be his point.
The noble Lord said on Second Reading that the revised ground for refusal of an order does not take into account an individual's personal circumstances, as opposed to circumstances relating to his use or enjoyment of the land. He gave the example, as he
878
mentioned today, of a person who is ill and suffering from a nervous complaint where noise emanating from work may have had a deleterious effect on his health.
It is perhaps arguable whether the present subsection (3) in the Bill is wide enough to allow the court properly to refuse an access order in such a case. However, I think that the noble Lord made a very good case for putting the matter beyond doubt. For that reason, Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 respond to that anxiety by providing for an additional ground as an alternative to the existing grounds on which the courts should refuse to make an order; namely, that the respondent or any other person in occupation of the subservient land would suffer hardship to such a degree by reason of the entry that it would be unreasonable to make the order.
There is reference in Amendment No. 5 to "any other person" in occupation of the land. The subsection has been redrafted to cover,
"any other person … in occupation … (whether of full age or capacity or not)"
of the servient land. That is intended to allow the respondent to raise the issue of the hardship to cover other occupiers of his land such as the seriously ill child. The words in parenthesis are included because in other statutory contexts the courts would have taken the view that children under 18 are not in occupation. I hope that the amendment will meet with the agreement of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Newall: Perhaps I may make a small point. I did not wish to intervene, but it seems to me that if one inserts the word "a", surely one has to delete the word "the". Otherwise it does not make sense.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: I believe that the wording will become clear if one looks at the redrafting which will apply after acceptance of the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: I support this line of dealing with the matter that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised earlier. I believe that the amendment moved by noble friend Lord Murton of Lindisfarne is a satisfactory way of dealing with the issue.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 23, after ("land") insert (", or
(b) the respondent, or any other person (whether of full age or capacity or not) in occupation of the whole or any part of the servient land, would suffer hardship,").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is consequential upon the previous amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Wilberforce: I am not happy about the words,
"in occupation of the whole or any part".
I understand the case of the sick or lunatic child on the land. Is it right to say that such a person is in occupation? They are technical words. I should have preferred something like "residing on" or "living on". If the noble and learned Lord is satisfied with the

879
words, it is not for me to object to them. But it seems to me that they are not accurate or apt for the many cases that may arise.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: I get into deep water at this point, and I make no apology for that. I am advised that under the present law the courts have to take the view that children under the age of 18 are not in occupation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("any land") and insert ("the dominant land").
The noble Lord said: This is the drafting amendment to which I referred earlier. It is a small point of drafting about which I should like clarification. The amendment takes out the word "any" at the end of Clause 1(4) and inserts the words "the dominant". When a statute, or any document intended to have legal effect, states a proposition and gives specific instances or examples of how it may have effect, it is often considered necessary to preface the list with words such as "provided that this shall be without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing". Those words are intended to avoid the possibility that whoever interprets the general proposition will feel it necessary to limit its application to cases similar to those given as specific examples.
Clause 1(4) contains what is, in effect, just such a without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing conclusion. Unfortunately, it misdescribes what is in fact the foregoing. The general proposition deals with what is necessary for the preservation of the dominant land. The words at the end of the subsection refer to "any land". That can only cause confusion. I hope that my noble friend will agree that the amendment is appropriate.
I should like to raise a point about that sub-section at this stage. I hope that my noble friend or my noble and learned friend can help me over it. In the earlier Bill on this subject Clause 1(4) provided a list of works which an access order might include. The list was clearly governed by Clause 1(2)(a), which requires the works to be reasonably necessary for the preservation of the land. Clause 1(4) of this Bill is in a much more extended and complicated form. I wonder why. It includes what seems to me to be the curious reference to "basic preservation works" and what is nearly a form of tautology to the effect that, if it is reasonably necessary to carry out basic preservation works to the dominant land, then those works are reasonably necessary for the preservation of the dominant land. The only meaning I can attach to that provision is that there are works of a certain character which are deemed to be for the protection of land whether they are in fact of value for the protection of land. That does not seem to be a helpful or satisfactory provision.
I cannot see why that form of drafting is to be preferred to the drafting of the earlier Bill. The Bill is complicated over what seems to be a simple matter. We regret, but must accept, that most of the
880
complications are necessary, but if the Bill, which will be read in every high street, can be made simpler, it should be. I beg to move.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My noble friend raised a number of drafting points in relation to subsections (4) and (5). In all humility, and sensibly, it would probably be appropriate for me to leave the matter to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor—if he agrees—to give us his views on those points.
The Lord Chancellor: In order to deal with the point of the amendment, it might be helpful to refer to Clause 1(2)(a) to gain a proper understanding of the purpose of subsection (4). Under subsection (2) the court will make an access order in any particular case only if it is satisfied:
"(a) that the works are reasonably necessary for the preservation of the whole or any part of the dominant land".
The term "dominant land" is defined in Clause 1(1). It is the land to which works are desired to be carried out.
The purpose of subsection (4) is to provide a partial definition of works that are reasonably necessary for the preservation of the land; that is, the dominant land which is the subject of the application. Subsection (4) deems the works listed in paragraphs (a) to (d), which are called basic preservation works, to be works which are reasonably necessary for the preservation of the land in subsection (2) (a). The idea is to provide help. If the work is within the list, it is basic preservation work, but the list is deliberately not exhaustive because it is difficult to imagine all possible cases requiring preservation. There may be other works which may be reasonably necessary for the preservation of land over and above what we have thought of and listed. Hence, the last three lines in subsection (4). That is intended as a generality to describe what could be regarded as reasonably necessary for the preservation of land. It is not related to the particular land; it is in the nature of a definition, or a way of keeping open the definition, of what is meant by the word "preservation" in the context of land.
The land in question does not become dominant land until it is the subject of an application for an access order under Clause 1(1). The purpose of the last few words of the subsection, the subject of the amendment, is to keep open the meaning of the word "preservation" so that if some case arises which has not been thought of and included in paragraphs (a) to (d) it would not be excluded.
The meaning of the word "preservation" has been brought into the matter. The changes we have inserted into Clause 1 were intended to make clear, in response to discussions on the earlier Bill, the scope of the allowable works. However, in line with the Law Commission's recommendations the Bill deliberately leaves the term "preservation" undefined. It will be for the courts to interpret the term, but I believe that it is something which should be understood in its ordinary sense, having regard to the mischief with which the Bill seeks to deal. It would be difficult, standing here, to list every possible type of preservation. On the other hand, given a particular example, it might be easier to

881
say whether or not it amounted to preservation. That is the kind of flexibility which I believe it would be reasonable for the Bill to retain.
Lord Coleraine: I thank my noble and learned friend for that explanation which I look forward to reading in the Official Report and which I shall try to take in fully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Terms and conditions of access orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 43, leave out ("just") and insert ("fair").
The noble Lord said: This amendment makes a small drafting change intended to meet the anxiety expressed by my noble friend Lord Coleraine on Second Reading that valuers would be happier to apply the term "fair and reasonable" than the term "just and reasonable" used in Clause 2(4). I am therefore happy to meet my noble friend's worry and make this minor alteration. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful to my noble friend for moving the amendment, and I commend it to the Committee.
The Lord Chancellor: I too support the amendment. No doubt many people would be amused to observe that there is thought to be a difference between "justice" and "fairness". However, for consistency "fair and reasonable" seems to be the right term.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 45, leave out ("or to any person") and insert ("and any persons").
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, it may be helpful if I speak first to the main amendment, Amendment No. 14, and then return to Amendment No. 12.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 12, 15 and 17 is either paving or consequential. The purpose of Amendment No. 14 is to provide an exhaustive definition of "financial advantage" for the purpose of Clause 2(4), the licence fee provision, in place of the existing inclusive definition of that term. Broadly speaking, the financial advantage is now to be taken to be either by (a) the increase in value, if any, of the dominant land, less the costs of the works with the benefit of the access order; or (b) in the case where it would be possible to carry out the works without the benefit of an order, the saving of the cost of the works; that is, the difference between the likely cost of the works without the benefit of the order and the cost with the benefit of the order. In cases where both (a) and (b) apply, the financial advantage will be taken to be the greater of the two sums.
In the debate on Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Coleraine was concerned that the existing Clause 2(5) might give rise to double counting which would
882
be over-generous to the respondents and unfair to the applicants. In the same debate, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor doubted whether the courts would be amenable to allowing double counting because the formula is built in such a way that these are the circumstances to which the court has to have regard.
That remains the case, but there is a risk that the current formula may be read the wrong way. I believe that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor accepts that this is so. I am grateful to both my noble friends; one for having raised the problem in the first place, and the other for having helped me to find the answer to it. I beg formally to move Amendment No. 12.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful once again to my noble friend for bringing forward this group of amendments, which corrects the problem of double counting to which I referred on Second Reading. It also corrects what I noticed as a small error in the formulation which I made at Second Reading. It is right that there should not be double counting, and the amendments put the matter beyond doubt. I commend them to the Committee.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful for what my noble friend said. I too support the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, leave out lines 3 to 5.
The noble Lord said: I regard this as an important amendment and one of principle. I can best introduce it by asking the Committee to look at Clause 2(4) (b) at the top of page 4 of the Bill. Your Lordships will see that the provisions in regard to subsection (4) (a) are not applicable in so far as any payment may be ordered where the works which the applicant desires to carry out by means of the entry are works to residential land.
On Second Reading, we tried to see whether we were effectively covering all the points that arise over the difficulty with which the Bill is meant to deal. All the examples that we examined were of homes. One recognises at once that there may be quite a few cases where industrial or shop premises are involved, but we were in the main thinking of a residence, belonging to a rather difficult neighbour, and where urgent works were required to the person's premises. The Bill would aid that person in getting essential work done if he had to go to his neighbour's property.
I ask the Committee to trace through what happens when there is an invasion of privacy, or inconvenience is caused to a person who is asked to make his land or property available for works to be carried out. Clause 2(2) on page 3 of the Bill states that:
"An access order may impose upon the applicant or the respondent such terms and conditions as appear to the court to be reasonably necessary for the purpose of avoiding or restricting—

(a) any loss, damage, or injury …

(b) any inconvenience or loss of privacy".

That means that the court can impose an order limiting the loss, damage or injury or the

883
inconvenience or loss of privacy where the court thinks it necessary and feels able to do so. There is here no question of compensation. It is a term or condition which will be imposed to avoid or restrict.
On the basis that the privacy of the individual in his home will be invaded or he will suffer inconvenience, he can look only under subsection (2) for the judge's discretion in imposing a term or condition which may restrict or limit that inconvenience or loss of privacy.
Subsection (3) starts with the words,
"Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2)".
So there is no question of it being without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), which further states:
"the terms and conditions which may be imposed under that subsection include provisions with respect to …,
(f) the payment of compensation for any loss, damage or injury which will, or might, be caused to the respondent or any other person".
The Committee will remember from subsection (2) that in the Bill there is a recognised difference between "loss, damage or injury" and,
"inconvenience or loss of privacy".
The Bill takes the trouble to put in subsection (2) (a) "loss, damage or injury", then realising that it does not cover "inconvenience or loss" it then refers to "inconvenience or loss". To date we are in the position that although the judge can try to limit inconvenience or loss of privacy, subsection (3) (f) gives him no power to pay compensation for anything other than loss, damage or injury. I hope the Committee will bear in mind the little man in his home I have referred to. He will undoubtedly suffer quite a loss of privacy and quite a bit of inconvenience.
I shall now consider whether my little man is protected under subsection (4). Subsection (4) states:
"An access order may include provision requiring the applicant to pay the respondent such sum by way of consideration for the privilege of entering the servient land … including, in particular—
(a) the likely financial advantage of the order".
That provision does not cover the case I am discussing. I am discussing a house. I am not discussing industrial or business premises.
However, my eyes lit up when I noticed subsection (4) (b). I thought my little man was covered as a payment may be awarded for,
"the degree of inconvenience likely to be caused to the respondent or any other person by the entry".
I considered that inconvenience would cover loss of privacy and that I should not worry further about it. However, the subsection contains momentous words which my amendment seeks to delete. Subsection (4) (b) states:
"but no payment shall be ordered under this subsection if and to the extent that the works which the applicant desires to carry out by means of the entry are works to residential land".
Therefore the owner or tenant of the house I have referred to in the context of my example may come before the court as a respondent. The judge decides it is right and proper to make an order. He says he will make terms and conditions which restrict the undoubted loss of privacy and inconvenience the respondent will sustain. The judge says he will restrict the loss of privacy and inconvenience as far as is possible. However, the judge will then say, "I am afraid this Bill does not enable me to pay you any
884
compensation. The House of Lords must have missed the point when they discussed this Bill in Committee, or must have intentionally omitted it. It only entitles me to pay compensation if you are suffering loss, damage or injury. The House of Lords could not have intended me to pay compensation for inconvenience or loss of privacy as that matter was dealt with in a previous subsection. When you might have received a payment by way of consideration under Clause 2(4), according to the debate in Hansard—presumably a judge should not read Hansard but for the purposes of my example I shall assume he has done so—"it was decided that a payment could not be awarded for inconvenience or loss of privacy in the case of residential homes. A payment can only be made in the case of industrial or business premises." I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I hope as a layman I may dare to intervene. In my opinion the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is not only extremely reasonable but also wholly desirable. Perhaps in the case of the owner occupier or the tenant occupier of the dominant land the clause as it stands may be justified. However, I am not sure about that. But let us suppose the land in question were to comprise a large Victorian house which a property developer had acquired for the purpose of converting it into a large number of self-contained flats. In the process he hoped to make himself a great deal of money. There is nothing necessarily wrong with property developers making money, but if they are to do so I see no reason whatever why they should not pay compensation to the occupants of the servient land who are inconvenienced by that process.
Lord Coleraine: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made a point that I have some sympathy with. The noble Lord did not take the line that has just been taken by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that there is something wrong with making the distinction between residential land and other land. I do not propose to address that point at this stage. However, as he presents it, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, seems to be a "baby with the bath water" amendment. It is a small point and a good one but in making the amendment he achieves much greater amendments to the Bill than he has spoken to. I should have thought if he had wanted to achieve the object he has described—I feel sympathy for that—he should have added the point as an additional paragraph to Clause 2(3) of the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: I hope the Committee will allow me to reply to points as they are made. I have taken the Committee stage—as I took Second Reading—as a stage where one advances a principle if one has one, but one does not labour the Committee, or indeed persecute oneself, by endeavouring to use the precise words that the draftsman may have used, and to much better effect.
My point is a simple one. I entirely agree that I could have presented the amendment in a different and, most likely, better way. My point is that, on the present wording of the Bill, a residential occupier is, in my judgment, excluded from having any payment or

885
compensation made to him by virtue of his suffering a loss of privacy or inconvenience. That is the point I really wish to make. I am indebted to the noble Lord for suggesting other ways in which I might have dealt with that point.
Lord Coleraine: I am glad the noble Lord is not attacking the general distinction between residential land and other land. I take the point he is making.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is his usual entirely persuasive self. I accept that this is a difficult point and that arguments can be made both ways. For the exclusion one could say rural landowners are used to paying licence fees anyway and this is less common in residential cases. One could also argue that if this measure were included in the Bill it could lead to more litigation. It could also add to the cost of works in an ordinary case such as the case that occurred in the constituency of my honourable friend Mr. John Ward.
On the other hand, against exclusion is the fact that the distinction is a fairly arbitrary one. There could be disputes in borderline cases. Inconvenience to respondents is likely to be greater in residential cases. However, as I understand the position, compensation would be payable for loss. This is a difficult point. I personally think it would be better to leave the Bill as it is at present because I believe it is the custom in agricultural situations for payments of this kind to be made. However, it is much less common in the case of residential land.
The Lord Chancellor: The amendment as proposed by the noble Lord relates to the provision with regard to the licence fee. As my noble friend Lord Murton said, it is difficult to achieve a balance here. The Law Commission has proposed no licence fee at all. It is fairly clear that the Law Commission's primary concern is with the preservation of people's homes on residential land.
The debates and discussions we had on the earlier Bill suggested that the Bill could be sufficiently wide in its application to properly include situations where a licence fee should be payable. However, the restriction applies in the situation in which the works to be preserved are situated on residential land. Residential land is narrowly defined in subsection (6) as:
"a dwelling or part of a dwelling",
and the surroundings of the dwelling.
Perhaps I may say a word about the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The Bill is not directed at work which involves, for example, the subdivision of dwelling houses. That would not be covered. It relates to work for the preservation of dwellings. Therefore I do not think that the point that he made would be determinative of the matter.
As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would like to see inconvenience to the small person covered. It is my understanding that loss, damage or injury referred to in subsection (3) (f) would include compensation for loss of enjoyment of the property. That is the nature of the inconvenience which is in question. It is difficult to envisage compensation for inconvenience which does not amount to loss, damage or injury. Loss of use of the property or loss of
886
enjoyment of the property to any extent would be covered. The distinction made in the Bill as drafted relates to a situation in which it is proper to have a licence fee for entering property when activity over and above attending to one's house is involved. I suggest to the noble Lord that his point about inconvenience is covered in the only way in which it can be properly covered, namely, by compensation.
As my noble friend Lord Murton of Lindisfarne said, the balance as to whether or not one allows a licence fee is a difficult one. He gave his reason for concluding that the balance comes down in favour of allowing it generally but not in respect of residential land as narrowly defined.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that now that he points it out I accept that Clause 1(4) does not embrace subdivision. However, does he agree that it would still be possible for a property developer to buy a derelict house, repair and renew it without subdividing it and sell it on at a considerable profit, although perhaps not for as much as if he were to subdivide it? That would be a commercial transaction. If the Bill remains unamended the property developer would still be able to make a great deal of money at the expense of the comfort and convenience of the occupant of the servient property.
The Lord Chancellor: It is always difficult to be certain about these matters. Subsection (6) reads:
"For the purposes of subsection (4) above, 'residential land' means so much of any land as consists of … a dwelling or part of a dwelling".
That is the essential character of what is at issue. The intention is to protect the person who is trying simply to preserve his or her dwelling against having to pay a licence fee, which is in the nature of a commercial consideration, to enter the neighbour's land in order to preserve his or her dwelling. It would depend on the circumstances to some extent, but a developer who sought to do what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested would have some difficulty in bringing himself under that particular clause.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may answer the noble and learned Lord in this way. All of us are interested in the Bill emerging as a fair and just Bill. I use both those adjectives as though they were independent of each other. There is no desire to carry an amendment for the sake of carrying an amendment if another course would achieve the right result.
There is a difference of view between the noble and learned Lord and myself. That may be my fault. I do not ask for a licence fee for the owner of my little house. The owner of my little house will, very properly, want compensation for the fact that in certain circumstances—which we can all envisage—he will suffer great loss of privacy. It is summertime. He has a little garden. He has been looking forward the whole year to enjoying that garden with his family. Lo and behold, as a result of our passing this Bill, his little garden is invaded by builders who work during normal hours, bringing in a great deal of machinery, and that little garden which he has tended for so long

887
is not his. In my judgment, at present the Bill provides no power for a judge to give him compensation. I shall explain why.
Forget the licence fee. Forget the consideration in that subparagraph. Look at the Bill as it stands. Under Clause 2(2) all a judge can say is: "I am so sorry for you. I have heard, with pangs in my heart, how you have tended your little garden and how you were looking forward to the privacy of it, which has now been invaded. Under subsection (2) (a) I can do something about that by trying to limit the inconvenience of loss of privacy as much as I can. I can well see that Parliament had in mind that 'loss, damage or injury' did not cover inconvenience or loss of privacy because the draftsman took the trouble to put that as an alternative. The draftsman wrote 'any loss, damage or injury … or any inconvenience or loss of privacy', taking it for granted that, in regard to the court's power to restrict by terms and conditions, that inconvenience or loss of privacy was a different issue from loss, damage or injury". The court can award compensation to my poor chap who has lost the use of his garden and his privacy and has suffered such inconvenience only under subsection (3) (f). However, subsection (3) (f) does not repeat the words "inconvenience or loss of privacy". The only compensation that can be awarded is for any loss, damage or injury. The court will say that it cannot cover loss of privacy or inconvenience because the draftsman has provided for that being a different consideration from loss, damage or injury.
All of us are too old in our membership of this great House to want merely to have the joy of victory in moving an amendment. We might have done that in our early days but experience and age reduce that glory. All I want the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Murton of Lindisfarne, to do is to take my point, without agreeing it at Committee stage, and to consider whether there is substance in the point that the court must be given a clear power to grant an owner or tenant of a house compensation where the court considers that proper for any loss of privacy and inconvenience. I hope that that can be considered, and I am sure that my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, will help me with the wording which ought to be employed. Whatever the wording, there ought to be such a power for the court. At present it is either excluded or there could well be misunderstanding as to whether it is excluded. I want to see it included.
Lord Coleraine: Before my noble and learned friend responds—the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, continue to strike a chord in my heart—I should like to go back to what he said a moment ago that the matter of inconvenience or loss of privacy might be covered already by the words "loss, damage or injury". If that were so, for the sake of consistency and to provide a level playing field between the residential and non-residential cases, I wonder whether it would be appropriate to look again at the words in Clause 2(4) (b):
"the degree of inconvenience likely to be caused to the respondent or any other person by the entry".
888
I suggest that if what my noble and learned friend says is correct, it might be appropriate to leave the non-residential applicant to his rights also under Clause 2(3) (f) and possibly to strike out paragraph (b) of Clause 2(4).
The Lord Chancellor: Obviously my noble friend will wish to look at this point and I certainly shall do so. My understanding is that anything that is measurable in the sense of loss of enjoyment would be the subject of compensation under Clause 2(3) (f). However, there might be a situation in which a comparatively small inconvenience, which did not amount to loss of enjoyment, could be prevented by the way in which the work was done. For example, in the small garden instanced by the noble Lord, obviously if people came through the garden at the time that one was going to use the garden that would be inconvenient, although it might be only occasional entry. A condition might be to say that instead of going through the garden one had to go round to the gable end of the house and follow a particular route.
So one might have inconvenience or loss of privacy which would be so incidental as not to constitute loss of enjoyment of the property and therefore not be measurable. I understand that that is why one wishes to have paragraph (b) in subsection (2). However, if it is a matter of compensation, it has to be something that could significantly be compensated for in money.
Certainly the point is well worth further examination. I should like to be clear from the noble Lord—I think I am —that he wishes to give effect to the general distinction between residential land, as defined narrowly on the one hand, and other land for the purposes of a licence fee.
Lord Mishcon: I am perfectly content with what the noble and learned Lord has just said in regard to the difference. I made it clear that I am not after a licence fee for my little men. I seek compensation where the court finds that, despite all the terms and conditions that it can impose, there will still be a loss of privacy and inconvenience to the person who is the subject of the order through no fault of his at all.
In those circumstances, I should be most grateful if between now and Report stage the noble and learned Lord, together with the noble Lord, Lord Murton, would be kind enough to tell me how they intend to react to my amendment—the purpose of my amendment rather than its wording. That would save me the trouble of tabling a suitable amendment with the help of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, at Report stage. In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, leave out lines 6 to 8 and insert:
("(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) (a) above, the likely financial advantage of an access order to the applicant and any persons connected with him shall in all cases be taken to be a sum of money equal to the greater of the following amounts, that is to say—

889
( ) the amount (if any) by which so much of any likely increase in the value of any land—

(i) which consists of or includes the dominant land, and

(ii) which is owned or occupied by the same person as the dominant land,

as may reasonably be regarded as attributable to the carrying out of the specified works exceeds the likely cost of carrying out those works with the benefit of the access order; and").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 15, leave out from ("order") to end of line 24.
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 32, leave out from ("them") to end of line 34.
The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to deal with a further point which my noble friend Lord Coleraine was good enough to raise in our earlier debate in connection with the definition of residential land. That definition is provided for the purposes of the provision (in subsection (4)) for the payment of a licence fee to the respondent other than in the case of works to residential land.
My noble friend pointed out that under the provisions of Clause 2(6) (c) (ii):
"the flank wall of a factory might be repaired under the Act without payment for access just because it adjoined or was adjacent to a caretaker's flat".—[Official Report, 11/12/91; col. 826.]
My noble friend implied that the provision in subparagraph (ii) is too wide. My amendment now provides for the deletion of the subparagraph from the Bill. While there may be disputes on occasion as to whether a particular part of a building is "used and enjoyed" with a dwelling, I believe that the test in paragraph (c) (i) should be adequate for settling most cases. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this amendment which deals with the point that I made at Second Reading and reduces the possible areas of doubt and difficulty where the distinction between residential and non-residential land applies. I hope that the Committee will approve it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 35, leave out ("subsection (4) above") and insert ("this section").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 5, line 3, at end insert:
("( ) Rules of Court may provide for the costs of an application for an access order to be borne by the applicant
890
unless it appears to the Court that there was no reasonable ground for opposing the application or that the respondent acted unreasonably in opposing the application.").
The noble Lord said: By this amendment I intend to allow the rules committees to make rules of court which would have the effect of providing that, unless a respondent to an application for an access order has been unreasonable, the applicant will have to pay the costs of the application.
The Bill contains no provision covering the liability of the parties for the cost of an application. As I understand it, the effect will be that the court hearing an application for an access order will have what is called a discretion as to costs. However, in the exercise of that discretion the court will be bound by a general rule that costs follow the event. Again, the effect will mean that if the access order is made, it will be the respondent who will normally have to pay the costs of the application.
Many of those consulted by the Law Commission, including the Law Society, were in favour of the applicant normally being held liable for the costs and not the respondent. I share the view of those who would consider it unjust that a reasonable respondent should find himself liable for costs.
I have been over this ground twice in Second Reading debates on this Bill and its predecessor. The Committee will have understood my arguments and I do not propose to repeat them now. Neither my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor nor my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate who responded to the debate on the former Bill in July have yet responded to those arguments. I hope that this may be the opportunity to hear the reply. I beg to move.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: This is a difficult issue. My view is that on balance we should follow the views of the Law Commission, particularly in view of the arguments put forward in paragraphs 4.115 to 4.117 of its report, to which my noble friend referred. However, I am not a lawyer and I recognise that this is a most recondite subject for the uninitiated. I should prefer to hear the views of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Renton: I have not dared to utter on the Bill until this moment. However, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Coleraine's amendment. As he said, in the courts the costs normally follow the event, subject to a discretion of the court. Parliament does not generally give to the courts guidance of the kind suggested in the amendment. However, I believe that the circumstances which arise in respect of this clause require guidance to be given. The circumstances are unprecedented and unusual. Future injustice could be saved by ensuring that those landowners and occupiers who have an interest in the court helping to get the matter right should not be deterred by a fear of having to pay heavy costs in order to do so. Therefore, I hope that my noble and learned friend will consider the matter both carefully and sympathetically. I believe that a good case has been made for departing from the normal rule that we do not guide the courts in statutes as to matters of costs.
Lord Wilberforce: I support the amendment for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Renton. I do so regardless of whether it is the right technique to use in order to bring about the desired result. I do not know enough about it. The principle must surely be right that in a Bill of this kind the costs should be borne automatically, unless there is unreasonable conduct by the applicant.
The Lord Chancellor: The matter was carefully considered by the Law Commission. When a body of such authority has dealt with a matter one ought at least to start from the presumption that it has got it right. The amendment as proposed achieves nothing that could not be achieved without it. The rules of court could provide for that in any event if the appropriate rules committee thought it right. On occasions my noble friend Lord Renton has drawn my attention to the desirability of avoiding unnecessary words in statutes.
I turn to the principle of the issue. The Law Commission concluded that the usual costs rules should apply. That view was stated in paragraph 4.118 of its report. It put forward three reasons to justify its conclusion. The first was that agreement will be made easier, and the need to go to court avoided, if the respondent knows, or is advised, that he will probably incur an order for costs against him if he unreasonably refuses access in a case clearly within the scheme. The second was that the ordinary discretion as to costs will enable the court to make its decision on the basis of what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case, having regard to matters such as the outcome of the case and the terms offered before litigation. It would be wrong for the rule to be that the applicant, win or lose, should generally pay the respondent's costs. The latter part of the amendment provides that the respondent acted unreasonably in opposing the application. Therefore, that is to some extent a way in which the Law Commission's point could be met. On the other hand, it may be that there are better ways of doing so.
The Law Commission's third reason was that a presumption that the respondent should never be out of pocket would be inconsistent with the provisions in the Legal Aid Act 1988, which restricts the liability of a legally-assisted person to contribute towards the costs of a successful opponent. If a legally-aided person made an application under the Bill the situation would be somewhat complicated. Since an assisted person's liability to contribute towards his successful opponent's costs is limited, a presumption that the respondent should never be out of pocket would cause difficulties if the applicant were an assisted person. Win or lose, the respondent would be unable to recover his full costs from anyone. There does not appear to be a satisfactory solution to that particular point.
Furthermore, in the kind of situation with which we are dealing the respondent would be able to protect his position on costs by making a written offer expressed as "without prejudice except as to costs" setting out the terms on which he is prepared to allow access. The rules of the Supreme Court and the county court rules provide for that. If the order ultimately obtained by
892
the applicant is not significantly more favourable to him, the respondent on producing the letter is likely to win a court order granting him his costs since the date of the letter.
I understand the sentiment behind the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, supported as it is by my noble friend Lord Renton and my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. I suggest that if the Committee were to approve the Bill without the amendment I should undertake to draw to the attention of the rules committee the considerations that have been raised in this Chamber. As I said, it may well be that the committee already has the power to do what is required and the considerations put forward would be for it to decide upon. I hope that my noble friend will consider that to be a satisfactory way forward. I should find it difficult to—
Lord Coleraine: Perhaps I may intervene. If my noble and learned friend were to draw my points to the attention of the rules committee with a favourable recommendation I might feel differently. However, so far he has said nothing to suggest that he will do so.
The Lord Chancellor: I should express considerable understanding and sympathy with the view expressed by my noble friend. I should certainly do that but obviously I should wish to put it to the rules committee to consider all the circumstances. Furthermore, the rules committee might develop expertise on the matter as the application of the Bill, if it became an Act, worked out in practice. I should undertake to put to the rules committee the speeches that have been made today, coupled with a view from me that the matter required to be considered most carefully. I should also point out that I thought there was considerable force in the view expressed by my noble friend. Of course, the Law Commission's reasons must be carefully considered also.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Coleraine that I feel confident about the outcome of the undertaking given by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and to my noble friend Lord Renton for their support of the amendment. I was originally taken with the idea put forward by my noble friend that this might be an occasion to put something on the face of the Bill. However, I should view that very much a resort after the last resort because I do not believe that this is an appropriate time to put a provision of this kind on the face of the Bill.
I wish to consider what was said by my noble and learned friend. His undertaking is one that I would not lightly pass by. I am sure that in addition to putting forward the points that I have made today he will also put forward my more detailed points and my expressions of the way in which public reaction would respond to this application for costs rules. I hope that my noble and learned friend will place before the rules committee my earlier speeches as well as those made in today's debate. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

893
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
7 p.m.
Clause 3 [Effect of access order]:
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 2, at end insert:
("( ) Where the applicant or any of his associates is authorised or required under or by virtue of an access order or this section to enter, or do any other thing, upon the servient land, he shall not (as respects that access order) be taken to be a trespasser from the beginning on account of his, or any other person's, subsequent conduct.").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment which will I hope be uncontroversial but which requires a word or two of explanation. The Law Commission drew attention in paragraph 4.111 of their report to the rule stated in Six Carpenters' case of 1610 to the effect that,
"where a person having entered upon land under an authority given by law subsequently abuses that authority he becomes a trespasser ab initio, his misconduct relating back so as to make his original entry tortious".
The Law Commission's draft Bill had a provision which deemed the applicant's entry under the access order to have been with the respondent's consent. The present Bill omits the deeming provision. However, it has since been noticed that this omission creates a risk that the so-called trespass ab initio rule would apply so as retrospectively to render unlawful the applicant's entry pursuant to an access order if he exceeded the authority given him by the order or acted in breach of a condition. This amendment expressly negatives the rule and so removes that risk.
There are a number of statutory precedents for this negation, for instance, the Child Support Act of 1991, Section 35(5). I beg to move.
Lord Wilberforce: I congratulate the noble Lord on having unearthed the delightful doctrine of trespass ab initio and the authorities which have supported it. This treasure having been found, it must be enshrined in the Bill. I am happy to support it.
The Lord Chancellor: I should like to join in these congratulations and perhaps add that it is particularly a subject for congratulation that my noble friend has managed to deal with this matter without actually mentioning the phrase "ab initio".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Persons bound by access order, unidentified persons and bar on contracting out]:
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 8, leave out ("is") and insert ("shall, subject to the provisions of the Land Charges Act 1972 and the Land Registration Act 1925, be").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 20 paves the way for the registration of access orders which is provided for by the new clause (Amendment No. 21) which stands in my name. The amendment will make access orders binding on subsequent purchasers of the servient land where the order is registered in accordance with the provisions of the new clause,
894
subject to the provisions of the Land Charges Act 1972 and the Land Registration Act 1925. I have tabled these amendments in response to the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in the Second Reading debate about the possible difficulties of conveyancers.
Amendment No. 21 (the new clause) makes the necessary technical provisions for the registration of applications and access orders under the Land Charges Act 1972 for unregistered land and under the Land Registration Act 1925 for registered land in subsections (1) to (3). Subsection (4) provides that where an access order has been discharged following an application to the court under Clause 5(1) (a) then the court has power to direct the cancellation of a registered entry, notice or caution in respect of that access order.
Subsection (5) is a technical provision which is designed to forestall any possible arguments that a person who has obtained an access order and is in actual occupation of the land (that is, to carry out the authorised works) from obtaining an overriding interest in the land, that is to say an interest which binds purchasers of registered land even though it is not protected by registration. If access orders were capable of being overriding interests, this would undermine the requirements of registration provided by this amendment.
Subsection (6) is another technical amendment which enables an application for an access order to be registered as a "pending land action"; so that if, for example, a respondent sells the land while an application against him is pending, the purchaser will be aware of the application for an access order and the applicant will, in the case of registered land, be notified by the Land Registry that there is to be a change in ownership of the land. That will enable him to join the new owner to the proceedings without having to start all over again, and without facing an application later on for variation or discharge of the order by the new owner. I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
Lord Mishcon: When I raised this matter at Second Reading, I was indebted for the point to the Law Society and indeed I believe, to a member of the Law Commission. Therefore any gratitude for this coming into the Bill ought to go to the Law Society and to that gentleman, as well as to the noble Lord, for having introduced it now.
The Lord Chancellor: I support this amendment with gratitude, and I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in expressing gratitude to the Law Society, the Law Commissioner and to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, himself, as well as to my noble friend for having dealt with it, as I think, so well.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Registration of applications and access orders
(".—(1) In section 6(1) of the Land Charges Act 1972 (which specifies the writs and orders affecting land that may be entered in the register) after paragraph (c) there shall be added—
"(d) any access order under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992."
(2) In section 49 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (rules to provide for certain rights, interests and claims to be protected by notice) in subsection (1) (which specifies those rights, interests and claims) after paragraph (h) there shall be added—
"(j) Access orders under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 which, notwithstanding section 59 of this Act, it may be deemed expedient to protect by notice instead of by caution."
(3) In section 64 of that Act (production of certificates for noting on certain dealings etc) after subsection (6) there shall be added—
"(7) Subsection (1) above shall also not require the production of the land certificate or of any charge certificate when a person applies for the registration of a notice in respect of an access order under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992."
(4) In any case where—

(a) an access order is discharged under section 5(1) (a) below, and

(b) the order has been protected by an entry registered under the Land Charges Act 1972 or by a notice or caution under the Land Registration Act 1925,

the court may by order direct that the entry, notice or caution shall be cancelled.
(5) The rights conferred on a person by or under an access order are not capable of constituting an overriding interest within the meaning of the Land Registration Act 1925, notwithstanding that he or any other person is in actual occupation of the whole or any part of the servient land in question.
(6) An application for an access order shall be regarded as a pending land action for the purposes of the Land Charges Act 1972 and the Land Registration Act 1925.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 20. I beg to move the new clause as printed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Human Rights in Northern Ireland
7.7 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the second report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland presented to Her Majesty's Government on 26th March 1990.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before introducing this debate, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for having managed to rearrange his diary for this evening. I know he had a problem with the date and I should like to say how very much I appreciate his being with us. Moreover, I am also grateful to other noble Lords who will be taking part in this debate, although I am sorry that we have lost the noble Lord, Lord Holme, who has gone off for electoral reasons and abandoned us. That is a great pity.
I shall give a little background to this debate. As your Lordships will know, the Standing Advisory
896
Committee on Human Rights was established by Section 20 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act of 1973. Its purpose was to advise the Secretary of State on the adequacy and effectiveness of the law for the time being in force in preventing discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion, and providing redress for persons aggrieved by discrimination on either ground.
In February, 1985 the then Secretary of State, the right honourable Douglas Hurd, said that the Government shared the commission's commitment to further human rights in the interests of all the people in Northern Ireland. This is the second report of the commission on its review of the laws and institutions aimed at preventing religious and political discrimination in the Province and providing equality of opportunity.
This follows on from the first report which was on fair employment and which was submitted to Parliament in October 1987. I believe that everybody would agree with me when I say that these reports from the commission are invariably well researched and well argued and that the report before us this evening is a good example of the high standard that they attain. I take this opportunity to congratulate Sir Oliver Napier, who is chairman of the commission, and all the members for the painstaking and valuable work they do.
Before commenting on the content of the report, I must register a word of reproach to the Government, which, I think, is unfortunately unavoidable. It will soon be two years since the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland received this report, but there has not been one word uttered in response. Similarly, although it is now 19 years since the commission was established, Parliament has not yet debated a single one of its 18 reports. It has produced 16 annual reports—the one of last year was of great interest—and these two reports, and not one of them has attracted any word from Parliament. I hope that at least this Unstarred Question will provide the Minister with an opportunity to start to put that right.
May I start by giving a brief resume of the report — it will of course be filled out by other speakers—before turning to one or two recommendations that I find of particular importance. This 135 page report contains 84 recommendations aimed at tackling what it states are gaps in the law, including constitutional law, which help create and reinforce continuing inequalities. In particular it argues that all the state's citizens should be treated equally as of right and that steps must be taken to ensure, through legislation, that all feel part of the state.
Citizens are entitled to have their cultural, political and religious traditions respected. In that regard the lack of race relations legislation in Northern Ireland is noted. It is a point that other noble Lords will bring out in the debate. The lack of any right to use the Irish language for official purposes is also noted. The report argues that these failings need to be remedied and that it should be specified in legislation when Irish can be used in dealings with the state. It also recommends that race relations legislation should be introduced.
A major section of the report stresses the need for anti discrimination legislation, not just relating to employment but to the provision of goods, facilities and services in both private and public sectors. Thus the commission calls for the outlawing of discrimination in, for example, leasing properties, the sale of goods, and the provision of contracts for services. Likewise, no new legislation should be passed which would have a,
"significant relative adverse impact on one particular section of the community".
There is a call for the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into Northern Ireland law, and the establishment of independent procedures for complaints against the British Army. The report also recommends greater energy from the state in promoting integration in both education and housing schemes.
I should like to highlight one or two of the recommendations in the hope that perhaps the Minister, when he replies, will respond to the points I make. First, indirect discrimination. This is obviously an important part of the report. As its authors say, the definition of religious and political discrimination in the Northern Ireland Constitution (Amendment) Act 1973 did not include indirect discrimination, and they believe that that Act should be widened for this purpose. They say that if the Government do not wish to make legislative changes, then at least these recommendations would be very good subjects for discussion with the leaders of the four constitutional parties. I fully agree with that, and I would be interested to have the Minister's response.
In chapter 2, the report points out that the 1989 survey shows Catholic male unemployment as being two and half times greater than among Protestant males. I should like to ask the Minister whether any measures have been taken in response to the commission's proposals that more labour market information needs to be collected in order to assess imbalances whether in employment or unemployment. If one knows the situation, one is better able to deal with it.
On rather the same theme, the chapter also highlights the all-important need for monitoring. The commission recommends that a procedure should be introduced by public bodies to monitor the impact of their own policies and practices on equality of treatment of the two main communities. It stresses the importance of monitoring and keeping an eye on the changes that are made, and the impact that the changes have on the two communities. That is an important part of the report.
An interesting chapter deals with the effectiveness of the Ombudsman. I hope that perhaps some other speaker will refer to it. I should like to ask the Minister about the important subject of complaints against the security forces, and the recommendation that an effective, independent complaints procedure should be established for complaints against the Army. I know that the Army is separate, but when thinking about Northern Ireland one thinks very much about the security services. I also know that there are assessors to report on how the Army deals with complaints, but
898
the commission was thinking more of the greater independence of the procedure for dealing with complaints against the Army. The commission states that there is considerable cross-community perception of discriminatory practice by the security services and feels that measures to rectify it are of the greatest importance.
In chapter 8 the report discusses education. Again I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the funding of schools, which comes out in this part of the report. The report suggests that serious consideration should be given to the possibility of equal funding to denominationally controlled and integrated schools, and to make more explicit provision in the education legislation of Northern Ireland for parents to have the right to have their children educated in either. Many of us in this House, who were involved with Lagan College over the years, have seen its proven success. The equal funding of the two different kinds of education is an important point.
It seems vital to keep this whole field under constant review. One needs to watch for changes in parents' wishes because this can happen quickly. Parents move away from the old traditional ideas of having their children in a denominationally-controlled school. It is something that has to be monitored. The chapter also refers to the use of the Irish language. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies will say a word about that.
The last point I wish to make regards chapter 10, which is about the future role and function of the commission. Here the report argues that the standing advisory commission must have greater independence and freedom of action if it really is to fulfil its objective of protecting human rights in Northern Ireland. I hope that when he replies the Minister will tell us whether the Government have plans to develop the role of this all-important body by widening its original remit through amending the 1973 Act.
I cannot make any other points about the report. However, in more general terms I wish to say that I do not believe that we in Britain can become complacent in regard to the international view of Britain's record on human rights in Northern Ireland. Last year there were many anxieties expressed from various quarters —Amnesty International, the US human rights umbrella group, Helsinki Watch and the UN human rights committee. In November 1991 a panel of non-governmental organisations met at the UN in New York and expressed serious anxiety about the UK human rights record in Northern Ireland. It is attracting the attention of many human rights organisations throughout the world and is something we must bear in mind.
I understand that the reaction to the report in Northern Ireland was serious. It was well reported in the press and perhaps the only reason it was not more extensively covered was the lack of response to it from the Government. In conclusion, therefore, the commission's role is critical not only to bring about greater justice and increased trust among the people of Northern Ireland but also to improve the human rights image that we have in the world.
Discrimination in employment, together with religious and political discrimination, as well as abuse of any human rights, are at the heart of the division between the two traditions. Britain's apparent failure to deal effectively with such injustices is placing a barrier to the achievement of that final settlement.
I end as I started. The Secretary of State in 1973 thought it right and necessary to set up a Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. The commission has successfully fulfilled the role given to it. Therefore, why have not the Government made use of that framework for the purpose for which it was set up—namely, to recommend improvements in antidiscrimination law and respect for human rights? The long process towards achieving a just and durable resolution of Northern Ireland divisions can only come out of conciliation. There can be little doubt that conciliation can prosper only in a climate where discrimination is outlawed and human rights are respected.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the report comes, as did its predecessor, as a direct result of events in Northern Ireland which began with the civil rights movement—the highlighting of events in Northern Ireland in 1968 and 1969. At that time the Scarman Tribunal was set up by the British Government. Anyone who has read the tribunal's report and the evidence given can be in no doubt that a disastrous state of affairs had existed in Northern Ireland since the creation of the state in 1920 up to and throughout the civil rights movement.
Because of the positive action then taken by the Labour Government when they began to look at what was happening in that part of the United Kingdom, one was left in no doubt, as the Scarman Report said, that there had been a vicious system of discrimination against the minority in Northern Ireland since the creation of the state. Discrimination in its most brutal form took place in the allocation of homes and houses from local authorities and in the giving of employment.
Northern Ireland since its creation had been run as a one-party state, not unlike the South African Government of today. Indeed, there are many similarities of attitude by those in power in South Africa today and those who were in power in Northern Ireland for 50 years. They saw their political opponents as a threat to their domination. I lived in Northern Ireland at that time; I was born and bred there. I lived in a Catholic ghetto and, like many others of my religion, I was a victim of the vicious system of discrimination.
After the terrible events of Bloody Sunday in 1972—which again was an illustration of the attitude of the Stormont Government to those who dared to oppose them—to their credit the Tory Government abolished Stormont. The following year the Northern Ireland Act 1973 was introduced, under which Northern Ireland is governed at the present time. A commission was set up under the authority of the British Government to look into the allegations being made
900
by the Scarman Inquiry and to see whether steps could be taken which would do away with the most disastrous effects of 50 years of Unionist domination in Northern Ireland.
I do not want to make a party political point here. We had a Labour Government from 1964 to 1970 and from 1974 to 1979. I have already said that a Labour Government instituted inquiries in the wake of the civil rights movement and a Conservative Government in the wake of the Bloody Sunday killings in 1972. But I thought that in setting up the commission and with the people who were appointed to it—people with a knowledge of Northern Ireland—all the areas that needed to be remedied would be defined.
I was somewhat disappointed—and here I make apologies for my own inaction because I was a Member of another place from 1966 until 1983. I read that the commission has said that every year since being appointed in 1972 it has given an annual report to whichever Government are in power. The main report on discrimination led to the promulgation of the anti-discrimination legislation in employment, and now we have the second report. But it is 19 years since the commission was established and neither the House of Commons nor this House has debated any one of those annual reports. One would have thought that the situation was so serious in Northern Ireland that much more parliamentary attention could have been given to those reports.
It is known throughout Irish history that perceptions in either of the communities are what really matter. Statistics are not all-important, although the statistics examined by the commission are relevant. But it is the perception of the discrimination which exists in every walk of life in Northern Ireland that is important. I hope that the debate on the report this evening will alert the Government—whichever government may be in power—to pay much more attention to the perceived and justified allegations of discrimination which exist in Northern Ireland.
The commission said that it would like to see a new Northern Ireland Act to replace that of 1973, be it in an amended form or completely new. It would take into account many of the legalities which are so necessary in trying to juggle with the problems of Northern Ireland. They have existed for 20 years, since the creation of the state, and unless we treat them with the urgency that they deserve, the cancer will continue to grow on the body politic of Northern Ireland and lead to a continuation of the present troubles.
It may be that the 1973 Act will have to be amended or renewed. We may also have to look at the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 because that is also a factor in people's perception of what is happening in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that one can look at one little Act of Parliament piecemeal; the whole question will have to be looked at. I agree with what has been said by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs; namely, that there are many fields in which co-operation could be brought about by the four parliamentary leaders in Northern Ireland and which

901
have nothing to do with the constitution. They could talk about jobs, unemployment and the erasure of discrimination in jobs and housing. There are many fields in which they could co-operate without getting into the terrible morass of the constitutional position in Northern Ireland.
When I was a member of another place, in 1968 and 1969 we set up what was called the Campaign for Democracy in Ulster. All the demands that were made by that organisation have since been granted in Northern Ireland. One of the demands was for the setting up of an ombudsman in Northern Ireland. We had one for this part of the United Kingdom, but we wanted to see that provision extended so that there would be an ombudsman in Northern Ireland. That was one of the civil rights demands which was granted.
In its report, the commission has asked that the ombudsman should be able to take representation from people who feel aggrieved by the state without having recourse to a Member of Parliament. I am only too well aware that a Member of Parliament in this part of the United Kingdom is very conscious of his constituency boundaries. He does not like any other Member of Parliament interfering within his constituency. Northern Ireland is not like that. It has Catholic, Protestant, Unionist and Republican representatives. One cannot restrict the activities of aggrieved constituents to go through their MPs.
Can anyone really believe that any Protestant now living on the Shankhill Road in Belfast is going to go to Gerry Adams? Can anyone really believe that Catholics who feel aggrieved are going to go in droves to see Dr. Paisley? I know that he tells everyone that he has millions of Catholics coming to his advice centre. I believe that to be somewhat exaggerated. But MPs who represent constituents in Northern Ireland are not in the same position as MPs in other parts of the United Kingdom. A recommendation has come from the commission that people should be able to take their grievances directly to the ombudsman without having to go through a Member of Parliament.
The commission also says that it is disappointed that the Government have not accepted its recommendation that there should be sound and video recording of interviews by police in the Castlereagh holding centre. I am not an opponent of the RUC. Throughout my political life I have been a supporter of that organisation. I believe that there is the perception in Northern Ireland, be it justified or not, that when people are brought to that holding centre, they are badly treated. That may or may not be true. One way to prove that it is untrue would be by the installation of video equipment.
Again, the commission has said that there may be a reluctance on the part of the Government to initiate any moves in the situation as regards the commission's recommendations because political talks may be taking place. As the chairman of the commission said to me today, he remembered going to the Darlington conference in 1973. Now it is nearly 20 years later, and we have had talks about talks, but the problem is still with us. That is after a period of 20 years. When I refer to a period of 20 years, that does not mean only 20
902
years to me; it means a whole list of people who have been killed in Northern Ireland year by year, month by month and day by day; and 27 of those have been killed this year.
We should try to take steps to bring about a cessation of the violence in Northern Ireland. Therefore no government should use the fact that we are in a political vacuum to say that we cannot do anything in relation to the report because there may be a devolved government settled in Stormont. I have serious doubts whether there ever will be a devolved government. I know that the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 was designed to bring about reconciliation and devolved community government in Northern Ireland. It signally failed to do so. I cannot see devolved government taking place in the very near future although I hope I am proved wrong.
There are many Catholic and Protestant people in Northern Ireland who feel that they may get a better deal, or that they may be already getting a better deal, from this Government in relation to legislation affecting human rights than they would get in the event of a devolved government being installed in Northern Ireland. The Government should not use the possibility of talks to prevent them from taking action in relation to the report. On page 119 of the report a question is raised about discrimination against people in the field of disablement. I know that that would appear to be removed from the main content of the report, but it is something which the commission should look at and report on as quickly as it can.
At page 119 of the report the commission questions its role and its future role. This has been a very worthwhile commission set up under the aegis of this Government. If the commission needs further powers, they should be readily given. The personnel involved with the commission are from Northern Ireland; they live there and they are desperately seeking to bring about a situation that will in some way contribute to cessation of the violence. The report is very worthwhile and it should be given the seriousness that it deserves by the Government.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate my noble friend for initiating this debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss the Second Report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. As the previous speaker rightly said, this is the first time that Parliament has discussed any report of the commission in the 20 years since its inception. The report is a follow up to one presented by the commission in October 1987 concerning fair employment.
It can be said that either I or my noble friend Lord Fitt could have raised the matter of the report. I can only plead an old story among parliamentarians and Lobby journalists, but certainly not among noble Lords, which goes something like this: it is said that when governments face a pressing problem or they have to act or face up to an issue which they are reluctant to deal with, the usual action is to set up a commission to study the issues. The commission takes several years to produce a report which gives the

903
government valuable breathing space. The report of the commission is carefully considered by government Ministers before being ignored.
Some cynics view this Government-appointed commission in that light. It may be that I was one of them; it may be that I have something of a cynical attitude towards all Royal Commissions and government commissions. That is because in the main, and it is not cynical to say, that provision is a good get-out for a Minister or government in trouble and they wish to push an issue under the carpet for the time being. Therefore, there is a certain amount of justifiable cynicism attached to any commission. If it is not cynicism, there are ways of dealing with the situation. "Let us watch the situation and let us see how it goes before we make any comment. Let us have a good look at it and see how it operates". That might have been the reason for the apparent lack of interest so far in the report, and certainly as regards the fair employment report.
That 1987 report began to reverse the process. I obtained the impression that here was somebody who was trying to do a job, but that it was they who were being ignored by the Government not the other way round. I took the trouble to read most of that report. Again, I did not ask for a debate. Perhaps that was a mistake—it probably was—but that is all the more reason why we should discuss the report tonight.
The report deals with discrimination and promotion of equality of opportunities in areas other than employment, although it covers employment as well. As the noble Baroness said in her opening remarks, it covers 135 pages of very well argued and very well researched material on how to tackle what it says are the gaps in the law. That term includes the constitutional law. It is a catalogue of continuing inequalities.
I began to read the report and was weaving my way through what seemed to be a jungle of cross-references and paragraphs when I received a copy of the Commission's brief. That made all the difference. I was then able to read with some sense through the whole report. It was an excellent brief and I was very grateful to receive it.
In the introduction to the report the Commission begins by listing a summary of legislation and research and discrimination in Northern Ireland since 1969. It is a very impressive list. It is quite an achievement in the field of discrimination in certain areas since 1969. I shall quote from page 9 paragraph 2/7. The report states:
"The above developments"
—that is the list of legislation—
"important though they are in promoting human rights, must not detract from the need for further initiatives: the evidence suggests that inequalities as between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, have persisted. The Commission believes that Government must ensure that the legislative framework for the administration and regulation of Northern Ireland's affairs cannot be criticised on grounds of failure to afford protection from discrimination or to promote full 'equality of opportunity'".
The report argues, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, that perceptions—certainly in Northern Ireland, we all know that—are as important as statistics. That
904
means adopting the broadest possible approach on discrimination; a far broader approach than some people in this House might interpret it to mean in the circumstances that exist in this part of the United Kingdom.
The Commission goes on to say that laws and practices which are manifestly fair and subject to clearly impartial review have an important part to play in making Northern Ireland a more tolerant society. I would go a shade further and say such legislation and laws are crucial necessities if we are to be taken seriously about our approach to the task of reconciling the two communities in Northern Ireland.
Dr. Christopher McCrudden, an accredited expert in the field and Fellow of Lincoln College at the University of Oxford, writes very openly on these matters. In a contribution to a recent publication on the subject of discrimination and public policy in Northern Ireland he said:
"Greater equality between Catholics and Protestants in the distribution of economic resources remains a key element in the reconstruction and reform of Northern Ireland."
We are saying that there is a consensus of informed opinion among people who live and work there and who represent areas there. Those who take part in academic discussions there form a consensus of opinion that something has to be done if we are to be taken seriously about reconciliation. My own view is that no British Government has taken it seriously so far. It is not too late and I hope that discussions like this will speed up matters.
Perhaps I may say that in view of that consensus we are entitled to ask why we have waited so long for more positive action to be taken on some of the recommendations that have been floating around for all these years. For instance, have they been discussed in the near-secret talks? It is very difficult to get any detailed minutes or information about the secret talks that go on between the political leaders of Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister. We get a couple of sentences if we ask for them; and if we insist we might get a one-page document with little or nothing on it. I have yet to see a detailed minute of any of those discussions. We are denied sight on grounds of security, or some such excuse. I should like to know, if the Minister can tell the House, whether those matters have been discussed in that setting and in that forum?
A few statistics have already been mentioned. Some of them were published in 1989, which is fairly recent. Others go back to 1987—almost 20 years since the beginning of that civil rights campaign referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. That survey, as the noble Baroness said, shows that, in spite of all the activity, Catholic male unemployment is still two-and-a-half times greater than that among Protestant males. That takes account of all the various factors. If 100,000 jobs were created the ratio would still be the same. Whatever happens, the ratio has come out for a long time at about the same figure.
On incomes, a survey shows that where Catholics were working 13 per cent. of them were lucky if they earned over £10,000. That compares with 21 per cent. for the Protestant population. That is a considerable difference in salary.

905
A Policy Studies Institute survey on housing showed that there is a public perception and some evidence that Catholics are getting a worse deal in public sector housing. That is documented again in the Commission's report. In another report on education, commissioned by SACHR and presented by McCormack and Osborne in 1991, a link was found between lower recurrent and capital funding of Catholic schools and Catholic school-leavers' lower academic achievement compared with Protestants. So there is enough up-to-date evidence to show that discrimination still exists in those crucial fields. Therefore, we are entitled to ask such questions as: what measures have been taken in response to the Commission's proposals that the Northern Ireland housing executive, for instance, should move towards explicitly and openly monitoring the equal opportunities implications of its practice? We are entitled to ask that.
Chapter 4 of the report goes on to state that,
"it is not satisfied that the provisions of the 1973 Act provide a satisfactory and effective guarantee against governmental discrimination within the current constitutional framework, either under continuing direct rule or in the event of the re-establishment of a devolved government, or legislature in Northern Ireland".
As has already been mentioned, they are seeking amendments to the 1973 Act to remedy that situation.
Critics of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 as well as a Policy Studies Institute survey in 1987 found that the 1976 legislation had had little effect on employers' attitudes, and even less on their practices. Job discrimination was still thought to be justifiable in certain circumstances—almost like the series of television programmes with Alf Garnett. It was a recent series about a factory situation in Northern Ireland where the question of discrimination arose in respect of the foreman who was employing people. The questions were relevant to the situation. It was a very good skit based on the kind of questions that are asked. It is not necessary to ask where someone went to school because if you know his name is Kevin, Sean or Seamus you will know the answer. If his name is not known and you find out his school you will still know who he is.
I recall reading a health department document in which there was an attempt to get rid of all that. Printed in large letters on the application form were the words:
"There is no need to give the name of your school or the type of your school when you apply for a job in this department".
However, on page 3 of the form the applicant was asked for two references, one of which had to be from the principal of the previous school attended. So the problem still exists even though some half hearted-attempts have been made to overcome it.
I turn now to informal recruitment, where the job goes on the basis of word of mouth recommendations and there are no formal procedures for employment. I cannot remember the statistics but I was quite surprised by how many employment procedures are carried out in that fashion. They contribute to some continuing levels of segregation. Investigations by the Fair Employment Agency appear not to have made any impact. It was felt that the restrained negotiating
906
approach rather than enforcement had failed and that an apparent lack of interest on the part of governments of the time did little to convince people that they were more serious about the issues of direct and indirect discrimination in employment and housing, to mention only two key areas.
That is much the same position as we used to find with the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, under which employers had to reach a 3 per cent. quota of disabled people. There were no teeth in that Act. Every time the issue was raised—it was raised a million times; I raised it time after time—the excuse was given, "We would rather go the negotiating way; we would rather have the softly-softly approach; we would rather try to convince employers". That never worked and eventually it was decided that the system was not working at all and it was scrubbed. That was fought but there has been a state of flux since 1944. Such an approach did not work in that regard and it did not work in regard to the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act either.
People question whether there is any point in these commissions. They judge, quite wrongly, that the commissions pussy foot around and cannot do anything because they do not have the necessary powers. The commission therefore believes that there is an urgent need for general legal measures to allow positive action to address imbalances. That is a recognition that the system was not working and it should be recognised by the Government that something has to be done. The Government must promote equality monitoring in all fields and must ensure that any exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation are in compliance with international human rights law.
Chapter 4 makes 21 separate recommendations for legislative safeguards against discrimination and deals with remedies, enforcement and monitoring. Later in the report it is argued that absence of concrete proposals for devolution should not be taken as a reason for delay in bringing forward legislation. I agree with that. There is no point in waiting for proposals from future governments. We can do it in advance if we have the political will. The commission has given us the ammunition and the right to do it. What further consideration has been given to the commission's recommendations on this aspect of discrimination?
The ombudsman has been mentioned by previous speakers. I should like to mention him myself but I am beginning to take up a little too much time. Nonetheless there are some recommendations in relation to the ombudsman. I find it strange that two different offices are set up—one for the ombudsman and one for police complaints—but one man does both jobs. If he does both jobs, why is not the title changed? Why separate them in this way?
Lord Fitt: My Lords, there is an ombudsman for maladministration and an ombudsman for local government, but police complaints are dealt with by the RUC. The ombudsman does not look into complaints.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the roles of ombudsman for maladministration and of ombudsman for local government should be combined and the job renamed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that people should not have to go through a Member of Parliament. I do not believe that people should have to go through a Member of Parliament here, let alone in Northern Ireland. Why erect buffers between ordinary citizens and the ombudsman? The Government are keen on citizens' charters and all kinds of other things. How can they justify erecting buffers between the citizen and the only person who may be able to do something for them? A Member of Parliament is not always prepared to take up an issue. It depends on who he is, even with my party. There is justification in arguing that people should be allowed to go straight to the ombudsman with a complaint.
I wish to mention one other point before I sit down. Page 3 of the summary mentions prisoners' rights, an issue with which I have been involved for a long time. The paragraph in the report—I shall not read it out but I hope that the Minister will read it—covers the rights of prisoners and asks that the United Kingdom should provide explicitly for account to be taken of difficulties which close relatives may have in visiting prisoners. The paragraph goes on to make other suggestions. I agree with what is stated in the summary.
I could be forgiven in some ways for thinking that there is discrimination by Ministers and officials in the length of time taken to answer Questions which I put down on the subject of prisoner transfers and in the quality and content of the replies which I receive. I could quite reasonably accuse them of discrimination in that respect. What progress has been made about the issue of transfers to Northern Ireland, as outlined in the summary? When can we expect some progress? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has already tabled a Question in a similar vein. I hope that we can make progress on that.
I have never disguised my views of the situation in Northern Ireland and I do not intend to do so now. Although it might take much longer than I have tonight to explain all of them, for the purpose of this debate it is enough to say that I do not believe that there is a military solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. There has to be a political solution. While the search for that solution goes on, steps can be taken to try to reconcile the two main communities. It should be recognised that there are two communities—two main communities; there are others now—and that there are inequalities and injustices. In addition, we should accept the recommendations of this excellent report and act speedily on them.
If I had had time I would have liked to have ended with a few more quotations. Suffice it to say that I hope that the Minister is listening. I hope that he will reply to some of the questions raised in the debate and that we shall see promises of action. We know that we will get action after the election but there might still be time before the election is called to put some of these recommendations into being.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am well aware that there has been a great increase in the level of terrorism and intercommunal violence since last Summer and perhaps even more so since last Christmas. It so happens that a longstanding friend of mine suffered very severe damage to his office in central Belfast as the result of a recent car bombing. I also know that terrorist activity has increased not only in Northern Ireland but also in England.
I have the highest respect for the courage, skill and devotion to duty of the vast majority of the security services, both men and women. I am as convinced as any one of your Lordships of the importance of bringing terrorists to justice and of convicting those who are guilty. I am also perfectly well aware that at least some terrorists have been trained to say nothing under questioning and interrogation and are encouraged to lodge complaints if they possibly can, and probably even to invent them where none is justified. It is therefore with some regret that I find it necessary tonight to examine and raise the question of what happens to suspects between the time of their arrest and the moment at which they are charged or released.
My personal background in the matter is a little unusual. I have had some very privileged experiences. As a result of prison visiting I have come to know, visit and correspond over a considerable period of years with one member of the Birmingham Six, one member of the Guildford Four and one member of the Ulster Defence Regiment group which is sometimes also known as the "Armagh Four". As regards the last group of prisoners, the Minister will know quite well that no less than 100,000 people signed a petition asking the Secretary of State to refer their cases to the Court of Appeal. We are most grateful to the Secretary of State for doing just that. I believe that it is widely hoped that those cases will be heard again in the Court of Appeal fairly soon.
I have also recently been able to visit Mr. Thomas Greene, a convicted prisoner in Northern Ireland, who happens to be a Protestant. In the course of a conversation he said to me, "I would have signed for every murder in Belfast to get them off my back". What he meant by "them" in that case was the officers of the RUC who were interviewing and questioning him. It is also a matter of common knowledge that very considerable sums of money have been paid in compensation to prisoners or detainees who had established a sufficiently strong case of maltreatment so that the authorities were prepared to make out of court settlements.
Over the years, we have seen a number of government reports starting, I believe, with the Compton Report, followed by the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, the 1979 report of Judge Bennett—which is perhaps the most important one—and more recently the annual reports of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. All of those reports have drawn attention to malpractices concerning persons in custody. But, if that were not enough, the whole subject has preoccupied the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights over a period of years.

909
It has featured in a number of the commission's annual reports. Last year, 1991, major submissions were made by the voluntary body in Northern Ireland which has concentrated a great deal of attention on the problem. I refer to the Committee on the Administration of Justice. There were also unprecedented steps taken by Amnesty International and a whole volume produced by Helsinki Watch to which I believe reference was made earlier.
I hope that the combination of all those documents may have secured an improvement in the situation. It certainly had not done so up until August or September of that year. There have been far too many complaints of a combination of physical abuse, threats and inducements. What happens when such tactics are used? I would say that those who are strongest and toughest are able to withstand such methods, but others, who are not so physically and mentally well equipped, crumble; they make statements and sign confessions.
What are the results of that? First, we get some wrongful convictions. I believe it is important to note that more than three-quarters of the convictions obtained over a number of years in the Diplock Courts have relied either solely or mainly on the evidence of confessions. The second effect is propaganda and recruitment for terrorist groups. There is a third evil consequence; namely, that the good reputation of this country is blackened and diminished, not only in Ireland but also throughout the world. The fourth bad consequence is that Britain finds itself in default or not fully complying with its obligations under international conventions which it has signed.
Therefore, I suggest that we need very greatly improved safeguards for suspects and people being interviewed. A Question I tabled in your Lordships' House and the correspondence which ensued in response from the Minister—which, incidentally, is deposited in the Library—has convinced me at least that the present system of closed circuit television monitoring of interviews which takes place at Castlereagh and the other holding centres is not an effective protection. I am sorry to have to say that, but I think there is little doubt about it.
In the course of one or perhaps more of his annual reports, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, has suggested that there should be video and audio taping of interviews. Can the Minister tell us whether and when that will be put into effect? It has also been suggested that there should be a code of practice to cover such matters. I believe that that is provided for under Section 61 of the emergency provisions Act. Can the Minister say when that will be produced?
A further suggested safeguard is that there should be lay visitors, or possibly an independent commissioner, who would be able to visit Castlereagh and the other holding centres at any time of the night or day. Other people have asked for earlier access to suspects by solicitors and also for them to be able to consult their own doctor at an earlier stage than now applies. It would be interesting to have some news or information about those suggestions. Another
910
possibility is that there should be a higher standard of admissibility in court than now applies or that a confession should be corroborated by other evidence.
It occurred to me that it might be an improvement if there were a cooling off period between the time the statement is written down and when it is signed. There may be scope for an independent person to explain to the suspect what the legal implications of his confession are likely to be. Another approach would be for the Government to accept, and act upon, the United Nations principles for the protection of detainees contained in General Assembly document 43/173 of December 1988.
The Committee on the Administration of Justice put forward nine points for remedial action in a submission to the United Nations committee against torture. That document was dated 13th November 1991. I shall be interested to hear whether the Government will comment upon that document and say whether they accept any of those nine points.
I have been inquiring into, and corresponding with Ministers, on those matters for some considerable time. It is very much a matter of regret that it is hard to pin down responsibility. One is likely to be moved around Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, the Chief Constable, the police authority and the Independent Commission for Police Complaints. I wish responsibility for those matters were more clear cut. I have also to say that I find it unsatisfactory that when complaints are made it is the RUC which is called upon to investigate itself. There is scope for improvement there.
I conclude by saying that the complaints which exercise us have not all come from fully grown adult men. In July 1991 there were complaints from two women—Rose Maguire and Monica Boyle. Last summer there were complaints from Kevin Mulholland and four other young men arrested at about the same time for similar offences. None of those was over the age of 18 and some were under it. It underlines the seriousness of the matter when we have complaints emanating from women and young adult males. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some satisfaction when he replies.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, a few years ago I was in Northern Ireland trying to help with some of the problems over their museums and galleries. I was taken around by a driver who was born and bred in Belfast. We talked, naturally, of many things. At one point he said, with typical Belfast wit, "You know, sir, there is only one solution to the Northern Ireland problem. You people over there should re-establish the British Empire and persuade those fellows in the South to apply for admission to it." I found that one of my most melancholy moments, because the only solution that that driver could find lay in the impossible recreation of the past.
Today, I am greatly cheered by reading the report of the commission which looks resolutely to the future and seeks its solutions there. I must say, however, that I am deeply disappointed that the Minister is today not supported by any of his friends from the Back

911
Benches. Not one has put down his name to speak and, as far as I can see, only one is in his place. I am sure that that fact will not go unnoticed in Northern Ireland.
It is probably true to say that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights commands widespread trust and respect for its integrity, breadth of vision and determination to address the deepest moral and social problems which face it. It was not always so. In the early years after its establishment in 1973, it was sometimes criticised for over-carefulness; for not speaking out; and for what some felt was pusillanimity. But, as the years have passed, it has grown in stature, authority, utterance, and, dare one say it, in favour with God and man. Its second report is a most powerful statement, the most powerful it has yet produced, and it is very welcome. That is not to say, of course, that it is flawless, or that it does not leave many questions unanswered and much still to be done. Its very scope presents problems.
As we have said, the report makes no fewer than 84 recommendations in 11 separate sections. They range from general proposals about the constitutional framework to detailed consideration of specific legislation such as the Race Relations Act. Yet, so far as I can see, there has been no attempt to evaluate and order the relative importance of the proposals, or to establish any order of priority. One could ask, "Well, what shall we do first? Which of these proposals is the key to the others? Which problem is the most urgent?", and the report would not offer an answer.
Some of the recommendations, although they may appear simple, do, in fact, go deep into the social structures and have wide implications. I think especially of the chapter on discrimination in the public sector where the report makes a distinction between direct and indirect discrimination. A most important point is made in section 4.10 where the commission argues that indirect discrimination (that is, discrimination which is not necessarily intentional, but which results from the application of rules, policies or practices) may be as significant in creating or maintaining inequalities as direct discrimination. That is a most trenchant point. The understanding and application of it will need to percolate into all levels of society, and that will not happen overnight.
The establishment and reform of indirect discrimination will be one of the longer lasting activities which the report will initiate. We must all be grateful to Sir Oliver Napier and his commissioners for being prepared to take where necessary the long view. The report is never guilty of short-sightedness or short-termism. Some of its proposals are much more immediate. The recommendations on racial discrimination in the sections following 7.4 (pages 72 to 75) seem to be much more urgent and to allow for little delay.
I must confess to having some slight reservations about that area of the report in that I have neither heard nor read of any great difficulties over race relations in Northern Ireland, certainly nothing
912
remotely comparable with the problems created by the clash of the two communities. I am sure that we would all agree that there is,
"no doubt that racial discrimination or discrimination against disabled people in any form is as objectionable in Northern Ireland as in other parts of the United Kingdom".
That appears on page 71. The report goes on:
"There are no official statistics showing the proportion of the population in Northern Ireland which belongs to an ethnic minority".
There surely should be. If the problem of race relations is acute and sizeable in Northern Ireland, then the commission's recommendations should be implemented quickly. If, on the other hand, the problem is small and infrequent in occurrence, then regretfully one must say that there are more explosive and immediate issues which imperiously demand to be addressed. I should be grateful for any clarification or elaboration which the Minister can give on the question which has been explored at length in the commission's report.
I should also have welcomed greater clarity and guidance from the commission on the relative urgencies in this area, which is perhaps to say no more than I have already said about the importance of establishing priorities among the 84 important recommendations.
I have nothing but praise, however, for the delicate and sensible way the commission has approached the question of discrimination and equality of opportunity in the field of education. Sections 4.20, 6.23 and 8.48 to 8.52, taken together, make a most persuasive case for establishing and maintaining a true balance between Catholic and Protestant schools. The commission has embarked on a major research programme on the impact of segregated educational structures in Northern Ireland for equality of opportunity in employment. The interim statement that it has been able to make in this report is carefully quoted and worth quoting at some length. On page 94 it states:
"There may therefore be some advantage in granting formal constitutional or statutory guarantees to both Catholic and Protestant schools that they will be treated equally and without discrimination, while also guaranteeing in some way the right of parents to choose integrated schooling if they so wish. On this approach the problem of different educational provision and achievement in the two main sections of the community, referred to in chapter 2, may best be dealt with by ensuring that there is full equality of funding for all schools rather than maintaining what amounts to a 'penalty' in respect of capital funding for those schools which wish to maintain some independence from governmental control".
That is expressed in the most measured terms, but it goes very deeply towards the heart of the educational problem in Northern Ireland. The ultimate solution, I suppose, to all the problems of Northern Ireland must in large part depend on the way children are educated. Prejudice, fear, hatred, aggression, mistrust and all uncharitableness, as we well know, can be built into a child's experience in school. It can also be built out, and it must be built out.
I was happy to see that the commission will inquire into these issues and into the solutions that have been adopted in other jurisdictions in the context of its programme of research into the educational system. I

913
would personally put this as one of the commission's highest priorities and most immediate concerns. I hope that the Minister will agree with me.
One can also praise the firm good sense of the commission in refusing to be hijacked by the fashionable excesses in matters of discrimination. Your Lordships will be aware that we are currently deeply engaged in your Lordships' House on work to improve the law on charities through the new Charities Bill. I was pleased to read in the commission's view, in Section 6.20 that,
"it would be unwarranted to attempt to interfere with charities whose beneficiaries are defined or restricted on the grounds of religious belief. It recommends that discrimination on grounds of religious belief should remain lawful for charities".
That is all the more welcome because it would have been easy and have gained such nice cheap publicity to recommend otherwise.
Taken altogether, this is a serious, sensible, weighty and, in some respects, a most courageous report. But there is one fact relating to it which my noble friends and I on this side of the House cannot praise. The commission's first report, the Report on Fair Employment, was presented to Parliament in October 1987. Work on the second report has occupied the commission since that date. Sir Oliver Napier's letter to the Secretary of State enclosing the second report is dated 26th March 1990. So the report has been in the hands of Her Majesty's Government for all but two years. We still await—and more importantly, Sir Oliver and the commissioners still await—Her Majesty's Government's response. The entire report, appendices and all, runs to 135 pages. Granted that there are many other urgent things to do in Northern Ireland, granted that the report deals with concepts and issues which are sometimes of great intellectual difficulty, and granted that officials may be slow readers, surely this is a long silence on such an important matter.
I trust that the Minister will not take refuge in blandishments like, "The commission has been kept in touch with our thinking", or "We shall respond in due course." We all know what that kind of language means. That would not be good enough. It would not — if I may say so with all due respect—be acceptable. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to explain why the Government are taking so long to respond. I hope he will tell your Lordships and the commission precisely when a response will be made. I hope that he will give us an assurance that this report will not be sidelined, marginalised, put on the shelf or consigned to the back-burner, but rather that it will be welcomed, that it will be implemented and that the implementation will be fully funded where funding is called for. This is an important report and it deserves nothing less.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs for initiating this important debate and for her notable opening speech. The debate has given the House the opportunity for the first time in 19 years to draw attention to a report issued by the Standing Advisory Commission on
914
Human Rights in Northern Ireland. It has given us an opportunity to urge the Government to emerge at long last into the world with their full response to a second report on religious and political discrimination.
Northern Ireland is interested in the Government's response. I believe that the Council of Europe is interested in their response. As my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs pointed out, the world is interested in the Government's response.
At the outset and in support of my noble friend, and like all others in the House, I wish to pay tribute to the commission's chairman, the members and staff of the commission and all those who have served it since it was set up in 1973. I thank them for the assistance that they have given to Members of your Lordships' House to prepare for the debate this evening.
I think it is fair to say that during its early days the commission was somewhat criticised in some quarters for side-stepping one or two awkward issues. However, during the past 10 years or so it has presented the case for reform of law and practice forcefully and with considerable skill. It has fully justified its existence. By today I believe it has won the confidence of civil rights workers as well as retaining the confidence of Ministers. That is not an easy achievement.
In Northern Ireland I believe there is agreement on at least the following. If Northern Ireland is to move towards a lasting reconciliation and stability, the historical barriers of prejudice and of political and religious discrimination which have divided the two communities for generations will have to be broken down. A forward looking policy must include their removal as quickly as possible.
Political and religious discrimination is still there and it is real. In addition to the evidence which my noble friend Lord Stallard has mentioned, the discrimination is illustrated, for example, by three recent decisions of the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Tribunal. Those decisions were announced in November and December last year. I refer to the cases of Duffy v. The Eastern Health and Social Services Board, McGrath v. Viper International Ltd. and the case of Neely v. Mullaqhboy Private Nursing Home. In each case the decision was given in favour of the complainant.
The 1990 Labour Force Survey by the Policy and Planning Research Unit—I believe that is the latest survey the unit has published—demonstrates persistent inequalities between Protestants and Catholics in the workplace. However, I am glad to note that it shows a slight improvement in unemployment rates. I accept that the imbalance probably cannot be fully explained on the basis of discrimination alone.
The commission's statutory remit is much narrower than its name implies. However, it is to the credit of the commission that it is no longer taking too narrow a view of its terms of reference. During recent years it has taken a wide view of the social, political and economic factors responsible for direct and indirect discrimination. As we have heard, the second report which we are discussing this evening is itself a

915
wide-ranging document. It is also a massive document. As we know, it contains about 84 specific recommendations.
I feel sure the commission would agree that some of the recommendations are more important than others. Like my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris, I believe it would have been helpful if the commission had indicated to which of the core elements of the recommendations it attached the highest priority. Nevertheless, it has emerged during the course of the excellent speeches made in this debate that the thrust of the report commands a great deal of support. Indeed no one has been moved to come to the Chamber this evening and speak against it.
I am particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will be speaking tonight on behalf of the Government. I am glad he has been able to attend the Chamber this evening. I hope he will be able to give the House an approximate indication of how many of the recommendations have been accepted in principle, how many have been rejected in principle and how many are still under consideration. That information would be helpful.
In the time available to me I wish to concentrate on about half a dozen of the recommendations in the report, some of which have already emerged in the speeches of other noble Lords this evening. I do not propose to raise any issue that was referred to in the 16th annual report of the commission, although obviously that was an important report. I have given the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, notice of the issues I intend to address tonight. I hope he will be able to respond sympathetically.
As my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs pointed out in her excellent opening speech, it is a matter of major concern to the commission that the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 does not specifically prohibit indirect discrimination. In the early 1970s when the Act was drawn up the concept of indirect discrimination was a new concept. That probably explains its omission from the Act. However, today the concept is well understood. The problem of indirect discrimination is real. We are told in the report that it exists in at least six important areas which are referred to in the key paragraph 4.20 of the report. In the judgment of the commission, those areas are education, grants to clubs and associations, broadcasting, the use of the Irish language, some aspects of public housing and some aspects of economic development. I am particularly glad to learn from the chairman this evening that the commission is currently addressing the issue of indirect discrimination in education. That is a crucial area as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris.
As I have said, indirect discrimination is not specifically mentioned in the 1973 Act. However, as the guiding principles of the governance of Northern Ireland are entrenched in the 1973 Act, and its provisions in the absence of a successor Act would be binding on a devolved assembly, it is important that they are amended to prohibit in clear and specific language indirect as well as direct discrimination. That
916
is the significance of the commission's recommendation. Do the Government agree that the 1973 Act should be amended or supplemented in this way?
The commission also advocates that there should be a statutory duty on all public bodies, including government departments—that point will not be lost on one government department—to monitor the impact of policy and practice to ensure they are not discriminatory, the information being strictly confined to that purpose. It is worth underlining that point. For my part I regard that as a crucial recommendation. Monitoring already plays an important role in the operation of fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, can confirm that the Government for their part accept that monitoring should be a necessary and standard element of any anti-discrimination policy and that this recommendation of the commission is accepted.
I now turn to another issue. The report contains a section on the office of the ombudsman. Reference has already been made to some of the recommendations in this section. The ombudsman is an ex officio member of the commission. The present holder of the office, Mrs. Jill McIvor, took up the post after the report had been submitted to the Secretary of State. Therefore she is in no way implicated in this recommendation.
I am interested in two or possibly three of the recommendations. Is there not a strong case, as the commission recommends in paragraph 5.41, for giving the ombudsman the discretionary power to investigate, on receipt of a complaint, all actions, inactions or policies about discrimination? Is there not also a case for giving the ombudsman the power to investigate on his or her own initiative all areas of maladministration which come to his or her attention in the course of investigating a specific complaint? If I understand the recommendation correctly, that is what the commission proposes.
Another interesting point has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords this evening. As my noble friend Lord Fitt pointed out, it is understandable that in Northern Ireland there is a reluctance on the part of potential complainants to go along the prescribed path to the ombudsman's door. It appears that complainants can become bogged down if they set foot on that path. Surely the route to the ombudsman's door should not be perceived by potential complainants to be an obstacle course. The commission is very concerned about that procedure. Therefore, would it not be advisable to give complainants a statutory right of direct access to the ombudsman, as is recommended in paragraph 5.31? I understand that in practice the ombudsman accepts complaints direct from individual citizens, but as that practice rests on discretion we believe that it should be put on a proper statutory basis.
I now turn to the question of the legal status of the Irish language in Northern Ireland, the Irish language being the first official language in the republic. The commission's considered judgment on that issue is this:
"the way in which the Irish language is treated is a touchstone of the extent to which the existence of two traditions in Northern Ireland is treated seriously by the Government and the community at large".

917
Those measured words are set out in paragraph 8.42. The commission goes on to recommend that the ban on the use of Irish in street names should be lifted. In paragraph 8.47 it recommends that the Government, in consultation with other bodies, should consider the enactment of legislation prescribing the circumstances in which individuals or bodies would have a statutory right to use the Irish language in the conduct of their business with official bodies, although I note that the commission does not itself offer a precise legal formula to achieve that end.
I acknowledge that in recent years in Northern Ireland the Irish language has received much greater support from the Government, and in particular this present Government. Nevertheless there is a powerful case for moving ahead along the general lines recommended by the commission. That recommendation has acquired a greater significance since the reliable rumours from Strasbourg suggest very strongly that the United Kingdom, France, Turkey and Greece have it in mind, in April or May, to veto the draft Council of Europe charter for the protection of regional minority languages even though the charter is supported by the remaining 21 member states. The proposed charter would have gone a long way to safeguard the Irish language in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government are not content merely to defend the status quo. I hope that they will not veto the proposed charter and that they will now proceed to commission a review from senior officials of the options for legislation which are possible.
I shall now mention briefly another specialised issue which has already been referred to by my noble friends Lady Ewart-Biggs and Lord Morris of Castle Morris. The commission recommends that the provisions of the Race Relations Act should be extended to Northern Ireland. That recommendation is also supported by the Committee on the Administration of Justice. We are told that it would be helpful to the Chinese, Indian and Traveller communities in Northern Ireland.
However, I believe that I am not the only person who is unclear about that recommendation. It has occurred to me that it should involve an examination of the key term used in the Race Relations Act—"ethnic or national groups". I believe that that is necessary if we are to avoid some of the tricky situations which are suggested at page 65 of Cultural Traditions, published by the Cultural Traditions Group. That is an aspect which does not appear to have been explored by the commission in the report. I wonder whether a compromise is required which would alleviate the problems experienced by members of the Chinese, Indian and Traveller communities without having to rely on the provisions of the Race Relations Act. I look forward to the Minister's observations.
The commission reiterates that the European Convention on Human Rights should be incorporated into the domestic law of the United Kingdom. That has been the commission's well known position since 1976. The arguments are familiar to your Lordships and will be found in the Select Committee report published in 1978. I am sure that if the noble Lord,
918
Lord Holme of Cheltenham, had been able to be here this evening he would have supported that argument strongly.
It is unclear from the report whether the commission agrees that the convention should be incorporated in Northern Ireland law irrespective of whether it is incorporated in the domestic law of the United Kingdom as a whole. I understood from Sir Oliver earlier this evening that the commission agrees that Northern Ireland could, if necessary, proceed and establish the necessary precedent. An important part of the case for going ahead in Northern Ireland irrespective of what happens in the United Kingdom is made in paragraph 95 of the 1973 White Paper. The argument is summarised in these two sentences:
"The protection of fundamental human rights in Northern Ireland will henceforth flow from a number of different sources … But because important areas of government will he devolved to subordinate institutions, and this involves written constitutional provisions, it is practicable to legislate for the protection of human rights in a way which cannot readily be done elsewhere in the United Kingdom".
I was heartened that my noble friend Lord Fitt, who has immense personal experience and knowledge of Northern Ireland, supports the introduction of a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland, ahead if need be of developments in the United Kingdom. All the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland are in favour of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. The case is also powerfully supported by the Committee on the Administration of Justice. It is also supported from these Benches and I hope that the arguments will be attractive to the Government and that a Bill of Rights will be placed on the agenda of the political talks which we trust for the sake of Northern Ireland will restart without too much further delay.
Finally, I come briefly to the need to strengthen the status, authority and legitimacy of the commission itself. We are sure that it should be as independent of the Government as possible. It should have its own secretariat, as it is quite unfair to put staff in the position where there can be a role conflict. It would be an intolerable position; after all, staff have to think of their careers. It should also be adequately staffed with specialist staff.
Moreover, we accept that its future role should be promotional and educational as well as advisory to the Secretary of State. It occurs to me that there is no reason why it should not have the power to convene a conference such as the International Human Rights Assembly in Northern Ireland Conference which is being convened in London on 6th and 8th April by the voluntary organisation Britain and Ireland Human Rights Project.
In conclusion, there is an immense amount of work for the commission to do if the historical barriers of prejudice and discrimination are to be removed. It is our hope on these Benches that the Minister will be able to indicate what improvements the Government have in mind to build into Northern Irish law and into the structure of the commission so that it is properly equipped to meet the challenge.
8.50 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity that the noble Baroness Lady Ewart-Biggs has given us this evening to discuss the Second Report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights on Religious and Political Discrimination and Equality of Opportunity in Northern Ireland. I should like to join with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in congratulating unreservedly the members of the commission under the chairmanship of Sir Oliver Napier on such a comprehensive and challenging report. Having listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said in his speech about the importance and value of the commission's work, perhaps I may make it clear on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that he values very greatly the commission's continuing work and advice on a wide range of human rights matters in Northern Ireland.
As the noble Baroness said when opening the debate, the report is extensive and well-researched. Indeed, it contains some 84 recommendations. Many of those recommendations have profound constitutional implications. They go to the heart of the problems confronting Northern Ireland by addressing the problems of equity of treatment and safeguarding human rights as effectively as possible. The Government would most certainly wish to encourage dialogue and debate to continue on the proposals among those concerned with political developments and the protection of human rights in Northern Ireland. We shall be reflecting very carefully on the remarks which noble Lords have made in the debate this evening.
The noble Baroness and other noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, in a most incisive speech, were somewhat critical of the period that has elapsed without an official government reply to this important report. I say quite openly that the trouble has been that the centrepiece of the report is a recommendation that there should be provisions in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act prohibiting indirect discrimination on the basis of religious belief or political opinion in the public sector and requiring that both communities in Northern Ireland should be given equality of treatment and esteem by government.
These are very important recommendations and more than simple human rights provisions. They would introduce major new statutory procedures into the process of government at all levels. Because provisions on these lines might be a part of future constitutional arrangements—this is an argument which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, hoped I would not deploy, but I have to do so—the Government have not felt able to make a response, although I think it is fair to say that we have kept the commission in touch with much of our thinking.
That is not to say that the Government do not accept the aims of the commission's principal recommendations. Indeed we are at one with the
920
commission in our commitment to the eradication of all forms of discrimination and the promotion of equality of treatment and esteem.
Nonetheless, some noble Lords—notably the noble Lords, Lord Stallard and Lord Fitt—were critical that the non-reply has meant that the Government have been inactive. The Government can claim considerable achievements in the promotion of equality of opportunity and equity of treatment in Northern Ireland in the context of this report. Indeed, the commission recognised in the report that the record of successive governments in this area has been positive. An extensive corpus of law has been built up to address abuses. In addition, the Government are continuing to develop policies which we believe will effectively tackle, by practical means, the inequalities which undoubtedly continue to exist.
Chief among this action is the targeting social need initiative which, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced last year, has been accorded the status of third public expenditure priority alongside law and order and strengthening the economy. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, asserted that there is a consensus and that something simply needs to be done about reconciliation. Through the targeting social need initiative the Government are working to eradicate the significant inequalities which persist in the social and economic conditions experienced by both Protestants and Catholics. By identifying where the highest levels of disadvantage and deprivation exist, by analysing the precise extent to which their whole range of policies has a differential impact on each side of the community, and by targeting the programmes and resources much more sharply on those areas suffering the highest levels of social and economic disadvantage the Government are genuinely and constantly seeking to remove differentials and rectify injustices. We believe that greater equality can be achieved by improving the social and economic conditions of the most disadvantaged areas and people in Northern Ireland, which in turn will contribute to healing community divisions.
Targeting social need is a long-term programme designed to bring about fundamental change. But immediate work is underway. In particular—this was a point specifically raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies—reviews and monitoring arrangements are being put into place already in line with the monitoring procedures recommended by the commission. For example, the employment equality review which will consider the complex range of factors influencing differential access to jobs is a notable example of the extent to which the Government are comprehensively and publicly taking action.
I turn aside for a moment to reply to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, when he asserted that there is still discrimination in the allocation of housing. I am anxious to say that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has been successful and has been perceived in Northern Ireland as having been successful in removing the controversy from the allocation of housing, which was undoubtedly prevalent in days gone by. All allocations are made

921
under the executive's selection scheme which establishes objective housing need as the sole criterion in determining allocations. Perfectly reasonably, the noble Lord asked about monitoring. The housing executive is now well advanced in developing procedures to allow it to monitor the effects of its policies on the different parts of the community, which should help improve its ability to achieve equality in the provision of housing.
The report also calls for measures to promote equality of esteem among all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. The Government recognise that there are two traditions in Northern Ireland. Through policies such as the cultural traditions programme and education for mutual understanding we are attempting to promote greater recognition of what the two traditions have in common and a sense of mutual respect.
At this point, I refer briefly to the matter of political talks, which is relevant to this debate. It has been well understood by all noble Lords this evening that, despite serious efforts to agree a basis for new talks, the parties have encountered certain obstacles. I am sure that all noble Lords will be pleased to hear that during my meeting with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister earlier this week, the leaders of the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland agreed to get together to discuss those obstacles in the hope that substantive talks might start at an early date. I believe that the Prime Minister's meeting with party leaders earlier in the week will have sent a clear signal to terrorists, from whichever organisations they may come, that their activities only strengthen the determination of constitutional politicians to assert democratic politics.
Any changes to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 such as those proposed by the commission would, I suggest, have to await progress towards a political settlement. That is why I have introduced the business of the talks. Changes in the legal protection of human rights of the kind proposed by the commission may form an important part in the political arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, specifically asked about the recommendation concerning indirect discrimination as well as direct discrimination being made unlawful. Other noble Lords also spoke about that issue. The Government do not wish to prejudge the extent of any future changes, although they take the view that the commission's proposals as they stand can in some cases raise difficult issues of principle and practice. However, I must emphasise that the Government have certainly not ruled out drawing upon the report's proposals if in future they are seen to be necessary to meet the objectives that we share with the commission.
The report deals with certain aspects of the work of the ombudsman, also referred to by several noble Lords. The ombudsman is the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Complaints and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Administration, a post currently held by Mrs. Jill McIvor. The post has become a trusted guardian against maladministration and the Government believe that the existence of the office in Northern Ireland is not in danger. We believe
922
that the present system works well. Nevertheless, we have initiated a review to ensure that the ombudsman's role reflects today's needs in respect of administration within the public services and the range of organisations covered by the ombudsman's remit.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and other noble Lords referred to the recommendation in the report that the requirement that reference of complaints to the ombudsman must be via Members of Parliament should be removed. I remind noble Lords that the rationale for that procedure is that the commissioner's role was envisaged as providing a means of assisting Members of another place in carrying out particular aspects of their functions as elected representatives in Parliament. It was considered important that the commissioner, as an appointed officer, should not become a direct alternative source of protection against unjust administration. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will remember more about that matter at first hand than I shall ever know. The noble Lord first substantially raised the issue in the debate. Of course it is not necessary to go to a constituency Member of Parliament with a complaint. Any Member of Parliament can sponsor a complaint to the ombudsman.
As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in practice when complaints are received directly from individuals showing evidence of maladministration almost invariably the ombudsman is able to locate a sponsor. Therefore, the problems raised by your Lordships are avoided. Before the noble Lord jumps down my throat, I must tell him that I take his point that if that is the case in practice, why not accept the recommendation of the commission and put the matter on an official basis. I simply say this evening that I take on board the arguments put by your Lordships and shall draw them to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I was not suggesting that the potential complainant should be prevented from using the present route but that an alternative route should also be available.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I take the point but I shall not add to my comments by way of an undertaking.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Morris, pointed to the absence of race relations legislation in Northern Ireland. I hope that your Lordships will not mistake a brief answer for a lack of regard for the importance of the issue. Previous administrations have not felt that circumstances in Northern Ireland justify the enactment of race relations legislation, although there are extensive provisions to prevent discrimination on religious or political grounds. We are keeping the need for such protection under review. It is a recommendation of the commission to which my right honourable friend intends to respond soon together with other recommendations.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, spoke about education funding. The report is in favour of equality in educational funding, which

923
was also the subject of a separate report by the commission published in its 16th annual report. That report made two recommendations, both of which the Government were able to accept immediately. The report was rightly concerned to ensure that funding was related to need. Through the application of formula funding under the new education reforms I am pleased to say that we have already done a great deal to target resources more effectively. We are also reviewing with the voluntary authorities the present levels of capital grant rate for maintained schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, spoke about the Irish language. According to the commission's report the Irish language is a touchstone of the extent to which the existence of two traditions in Northern Ireland is treated seriously by government. The Government accept that many people in Northern Ireland regard the Irish language as an important part of their cultural heritage which should be protected and cherished. To that end we have provided some £1.5 million in the present financial year for Irish language activities. That does not include the teaching of Irish in schools and universities on which considerable sums are spent.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked the specific question: what is the Government's attitude towards the Council of Europe movement in support of a charter for European minority languages? The general principles underlying the proposed European charter for regional minority languages are very much in agreement with UK policy in this area. However, given the different situations of Welsh, Gallic and Irish, the United Kingdom faces practical difficulties in responding to a measure which would apply to them all. We are also not yet convinced of the appropriateness of attempting to define a European standard based on a menu of choices which the charter provides. Detailed discussions on this matter are, however, continuing and I assure the noble Lord that the United Kingdom will come to a final view on this matter once the discussions have been completed.
Perhaps I may come quickly to the very important proposals for the future of the commission itself. Here the commission is making a number of recommendations which would change its role quite dramatically. The standing advisory commission was established by Section 20 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act. Since its creation in 1973 it has built an increasing reputation for its constructive and well-researched advice. I think it is right to say that my noble friend Lord Prior, when he was Secretary of State, acknowledged that the statutory remit given to the commission in 1973 was too restrictive. Successive Secretaries of State have endorsed that view and have welcomed advice on a wide range of human rights matters, even though this is not explicitly provided for by statute.
In practice, of course, the commission is free to offer whatever advice it feels appropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about the recommendation that the commission should be given greater independence and have its own secretariat and its own specialist staff. Without going into detail, may I say it
924
is our intention to amend the commission's remit and bring it into line with current practice when a suitable legislative opportunity arises. Of course, the commission already has access to internal research capacity and is able to commission research where it feels that that is appropriate. But the Government remain of the view that the commission's principal role should continue to be to provide independent advice to government. For that reason we do not feel that its legal status is something which ought to be changed.
May I seek to answer some of the individual questions of your Lordships which have not yet been dealt with. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, expressed the view that we need more labour market information. A great deal has been done here, with the labour force survey having been brought into effect—a large-scale survey to provide detailed information on religion, skills and qualifications of people who are unemployed. If one looks at the Fair Employment Act of 1989, we find there the provisions for registration and monitoring returns. I am advised that all the companies required to submit monitoring returns during 1990–91 are now in compliance with their registration and monitoring obligations under the legislation. I should like to say, having listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that I feel the 1989 Act imposed new obligations on employers in both the public and private sectors. It also introduced monitoring and is regarded as the most radical piece of anti-discrimination legislation in the United Kingdom. The Government believe that it will make a substantial contribution towards eradicating religious discrimination in employment in Northern Ireland.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, spoke of the need to increase confidence in complaints made against the security forces—a subject which is dealt with in the report. We have made already a number of improvements in the handling of investigations of complaints, including the establishment of the independent commission for police complaints. We have improved procedures for handling complaints against the armed forces. We are currently establishing an independent assessor of military complaints procedures, who will carry out audits of the way in which military procedures operate in respect of non-criminal complaints. He will have considerable powers to require the GOC to review particular cases or groups of cases in which the independent assessor considers that the procedures have operated inadequately. Of course criminal complaints against military personnel are investigated independently by the police. There is then the process of reference through to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I accept the explanation he has given for the present system of complaints procedures against the Army. But how does he respond to the particular points the commission makes that there is no confidence in the impartiality or fairness of the system as it is?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me, may I add one other thing? Of course complaints against the police are subject to the

925
oversight of the ICPC, the independent commission on police complaints, and of course we have before us still the triennial report of the ICPC, which made recommendations to extend and strengthen its role. That is currently still being considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, spoke about prisoners' transfers, and I should like to take this opportunity to say that requests by prisoners in Great Britain prisons for transfer to Northern Ireland are considered under the criteria announced by the Home Secretary in June 1989, relating to the length of sentence, place of residence and behaviour in prison. Each request is considered on its merits; and compassionate grounds can be taken into account.
The present criteria focus more on family circumstances than they did previously. For example, they allow a prisoner with close family connections in the receiving jurisdiction who intends to live there on release to transfer, even though he may not have lived there before conviction. Nevertheless, families often face difficult and long journeys in order to visit prisoners in other jurisdictions; and, following consultation, provisions governing the transfer of prisoners between UK jurisdictions are being reviewed. The review was announced to Parliament on 4th June last year by Home Office Ministers, and includes assistance to relatives visiting prisoners in other United Kingdom jurisdictions.
That brings me almost finally to matters raised by my noble friend Lord Hylton about the holding centres, which perhaps fall outside the scope of the debate that we are having this evening. The noble Lord began his remarks by acknowledging that the interviewing of suspected terrorists—not least at the present time—is something that is exceedingly important. If I heard the noble Lord correctly, he also recognised the fact that those who are terrorists, or have terrorist connections, are in the business of seeking, if they possibly can, to lay doubt upon the way in which the procedures are followed in the holding centres. Therefore, we have a difficult situation to deal with.
It is dealt with by building in considerable safeguards. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said that we need greatly improved safeguards. In "shorthand", there is the continuous monitoring of all interviews by closed circuit; there are the provisions for a medical officer having to be called if there is an anxiety; there are the provisions for a medical examination on arrival. In addition, access to a medical officer has to be provided at a set time every day; and there is provision for a medical examination before a suspect is discharged. Then there are rules about informing the family or friend, and consulting a solicitor, about the whereabouts of a suspect.
I do not think that this is the moment for the noble Lord and I to cross swords over those matters. But
926
there is the statutory requirement, as the noble Lord rightly said, that we put into Section 61 of the Emergency Provisions Act which was passed during last summer that there has to be a statutory code of practice, so that rules which are at the moment set down but not set down statutorily, will be so; and we are considering an independent commissioner of the holding centres.
Finally, may I—
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords, I shall not for a moment. I shall just finish this point and then give way. May I remind the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that where complaints of ill-treatment are made, they are fully investigated by the police complaints and discipline department. Those investigations may be directly supervised by the independent commission for police complaints if it so chooses, in which cases a member of the commission can be present during all interviews and remain in direct contact with the investigation process.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Can he tell us when we may expect to see the code of practice to which he has just referred?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the code of practice has been subject to consultation with various organisations and will be produced publicly for public consultation. This evening I cannot tell the noble Lord exactly when that will be, but I hope that it will be in the foreseeable future because, like the noble Lord, I attach importance to it.
I think that that is more than enough, and on an Unstarred Question I must apologise for speaking as long as I have. I thank your Lordships for taking part in an important debate. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for making it possible to have this debate this evening. If there are any questions or points that your Lordships have made that I have not answered, I shall seek to write. The Government are, I assure your Lordships, nearing completion on their detailed study of this report, and I expect my right honourable friend to publish his formal and detailed response shortly.

Midland Metro (No.2) Bill
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past nine o'clock.