Lords Sitting of 6 March 1992

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
payers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): 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 and Measure:

Bingo Act,

Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act,

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act,

Further and Higher Education Act,

Local Government Finance Act,

Offshore Safety Act,

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act, Coal Industry Act,

Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Act,

Local Government Act,

Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Act,1

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure.

The Ozone Layer
11.6 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa Lord Buxton of Alsa asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is the case, as expressed by English Nature, that a significant hole in the ozone layer may be developing over Europe and what guidance they propose to give to the public in the immediate future.
Earl Howe: My Lords, while there has been an underlying decline in the total amount of ozone of between 4 per cent. and 6 per cent. over Europe during the past decade, there is no ozone hole over Europe and no indication that one will develop this Spring. We do not therefore propose to change the basis of existing public health advice on minimising exposure to sunlight.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Perhaps I may put the Question again. I am trying to get a very simple answer to a very straightforward question. Is my noble friend saying that the Government do not think that there is any possibility of a hole developing over the northern hemisphere or, to put it another way, of there being any depletion of ozone in the foreseeable future? If so, then we are in conflict with other countries such as the United States, Canada, Denmark, Germany, and so on, and we shall be out of step. The second part of my Question asked what advice the Government propose to give to the public. The countries I have mentioned are getting a great deal of advice and information.
1100
They are probably interested but not necessarily alarmed. Do the Government propose to take any action on public information?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there has been some considerable misunderstanding of the issues in recent weeks. I shall say again, very clearly, that there is no Arctic ozone hole and there is no indication that one will develop this spring. However, the possibility of some area of enhanced depletion forming temporarily in future years in the northern hemisphere cannot be ruled out entirely. Turning to the second part of my noble friend's question, the real public health issue is that of exposure to sunlight generally, particularly sunbathing. In relation to that, the Health Education Authority has published a leaflet entitled Are you Dying to get a Suntan? and I have a copy with me. It deals with the health risks of exposure to sunlight. Copies of that leaflet were distributed to pharmacies through the pharmacy health care scheme in July last year, and copies are also available in the Library.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that at the recent United Nations Conference in Brazil, the United States Academy for Sciences and the British Royal Society issued a very serious statement to the effect that the earth's future is in grave danger. With the population increasing as fast as it is, the situation might be extremely dangerous in 20 years time.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government take these issues very seriously. The scientists studying the Arctic stratosphere are in constant direct contact with the Government. They report that the conditions they have observed are not progressing to extensive enhanced ozone depletion. Ozone levels have increased, and they are now within the normal range of values that are expected over the UK at this time of year.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it accepted that such a diminution of the ozone layer as my noble friend has mentioned is due to atmospheric pollution, which causes sulphur-dioxide and carbon-dioxide to enter the atmosphere? If that is so, are the Government keeping a careful eye on the need to reduce atmospheric pollution?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. Atmospheric pollution is thought to play quite a considerable part in the ozone depletion that we are now experiencing. That is uppermost in our minds.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that government scientists have already reported that over the past decade the ozone layer over the United Kingdom has diminished by 8 per cent? Is it not the case that the United Nations environmental programme has reported that if there is a sustained 10 per cent. ozone depletion, there will be over 300,000 additional skin cancers; at least 4,500 extra cases of melanoma; 1.7 million eye cataracts; and up to 150,000 people made blind? In addition to that, it is

1101
believed that this can also cause a great increase in the depletion of immunity with the possibility of an increase in diseases such as HIV.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the health problems associated with exposure to ultra violet, including skin cancer, cataracts and other skin and eye defects and the depression of the immune system. However, it remains the Government's view that the main risk to public health arises much more from people's lifestyles—in other words, the propensity of members of the public to expose themselves to sunlight during the summer. That is a much more acute risk than any risk of depletion in the immediate future in the ozone layer and the resultant levels of UV increase.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend clarify another point in this area about which there is some doubt and misunderstanding? Are not CFCs one of the largest threats to the ozone layer? If CFCs used in refrigeration are contained and disposed of correctly and not released casually or deliberately into the atmosphere, is it correct that they will not damage the ozone layer?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government are very aware of the issues raised by my noble friend. As I am sure he will know, the Montreal Protocol obliges us to cease production of the most harmful chemicals. In the case of some, this will be done by the end of 1995, and, in the case of halons in particular, by the end of 1994. These are very important matters. We are doing our best to ensure that the phasing-out of such gases takes place at the earliest possible moment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, do I understand the noble Earl aright? Is he saying that English Nature is wrong in stating that a significant hole in the ozone layer may be developing over Europe? Secondly, have the Government studied the experience in New Zealand, where a significant hole in the ozone layer has caused serious health problems? The government there have taken some fairly dramatic action to prevent the effects of what is in fact an ecological problem.
Earl Howe: My Lords, there has, I think, been some misunderstanding about these questions. United States and European scientists pointed out last month that the Arctic stratosphere exhibited the conditions that lead to enhanced ozone depletion. But those reports were unfortunately misinterpreted as announcing actual or imminent ozone holes of Antarctic proportions over the northern hemisphere. That is where the message has become a little twisted.
With regard to the experience in New Zealand, I am afraid to say that what is being experienced there and in Australia arises from the different atmospheric conditions that prevail over the South Pole, conditions which, for a variety of reasons, are not replicated over the northern hemisphere.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, is it not the case that ozone is a greenhouse gas and that, should a hole develop in the ozone layer, it would cool down the
1102
world a little? Can my noble friend kindly tell us whether ozone depletion might have some positive spin off?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend raises an interesting issue because it is now thought that the ozone depletion caused by CFCs has a cooling effect on the Earth's atmosphere that may partially offset the very strong global warming properties of CFCs themselves. But much more research is needed to produce precise estimates of the effect.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, perhaps I may—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, we have to be careful to safeguard the interests of other noble Lords who have put down Questions.

Water Resources, Eastern England
11.16 a.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa Lord Buxton of Alsa asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept the prediction by the National Rivers Authority of a severe water shortage this year in the east of England and whether they will ensure that no further licences are issued for the abstraction of water from natural reserves.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we cannot predict with certainty that there will be severe water shortages in the east of England this year. However, the unusually dry weather in eastern England over the past three or four years makes water shortages likely unless persistent, above average rainfall is experienced over the next two or three months. The grant or refusal of abstraction licences are matters for the National Rivers Authority.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I venture to say that I can predict with certainty that there will be a fearful shortage of water in the east of England. Does my noble friend realise that the National Rivers Authority is constantly under great pressure to issue new licences? It comes under pressure from vested interests and also, if I may say so, from government departments. Is he aware that the NRA must somehow be strengthened and informed that it has absolute authority to handle this matter regardless of pressures brought to bear on it?
Earl Howe: My Lords, an application for an abstraction licence must be made to the NRA, which will consider the environmental effects, the possible effects on other licence holders and other relevant matters. Conditions may be imposed on the quantity to be abstracted and the duration of the licence. There are also seasonal conditions which may be imposed. Objections to the application can be made and these could result in it being determined by the Secretary of State. I stress that these are matters which Parliament has established for the NRA to handle. It must be, in the end, a matter for the NRA.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that in answer to a supplementary question attached to the first Question of my noble friend Lord Buxton he used the interesting phrase "extensive enhanced ozone depletion"? Is that not precisely what is happening to water levels in the south-east of England? When will the Government encourage the water companies to apply to the planning authorities to build reservoirs to overcome this problem?
Earl Howe: My Lords, groundwater levels in the Anglian region are currently very low. Surface reservoir levels vary but are generally more than half full. At present, the levels of surface water are not giving as much cause for concern as the groundwater levels. If there is one thing the Government cannot do it is to bring about rain.
Noble Lords: Oh?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is the succession of dry years, and in particular dry winters, which has caused the acute problems that we are now experiencing.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not satisfactory for the Government to wash their hands of this question? The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, made a telling point when he referred to pressure on the NRA to give such licences. It is not even simply a question of the amount of rain. Even in these drought years Britain has had enough rain. The heart of the problem is the balance between extraction through boreholes and the retention of surface water. What we need is less abstraction from the water table. Noble Lords will know that abstraction is creating a major problem in East Anglia. Older trees are beginning to die because in age they cannot push their roots further down as the water table shrinks. What is needed is a policy of much greater construction of surface retention reservoirs and much greater limitation on the capacity of the companies to abstract through boreholes.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord's question was.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the government not pretend that it has nothing to do with them when the National Rivers Authority complains that it is under pressure from departments? Further will they make it clear to the water authorities that they want greater construction of retention reservoirs and less boreholes into the water table?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we continue to urge the conservation of water resources. Officials meet with water companies and the NRA to discuss the contingency planning required in the event of a continuing drought this year. There have been a number of major projects designed over the past few years to increase the supply of water resources over the country. They are progressing.
Lord Morris: My Lords, following on from the last two, if I may say so, excellent supplementaries, is my noble friend aware that the scandalous lack of action in this regard is perfectly illustrated in the area where
1104
I live where, since before the last war, the building of a reservoir north of Canterbury has been discussed but shelved continually? Is he also aware that, as a direct result of that, for the fifth year in succession a hose-pipe ban has been imposed on the area in the middle of winter?
Earl Howe: My Lords, perhaps I can be more specific on the last answer that I gave. Water undertakers now operate water resource systems in an integrated way so far as is possible to maximise yields and minimise costs. If anything, those are lessons which have been learnt from the droughts of 1976 and 1984. Several major new schemes have been completed including Roadford Reservoir in the South West and Carsington Reservoir in Derbyshire. New schemes are proposed in many areas such as those for north Kent at Broadoak and the Upper Thames Valley.
Lord John Mackie: My Lords, referring to the level of reservoirs, I live 20 miles from here. Is the Minister aware that the reservoirs are so low that we have to pump out our water from the mains at the end of the road and have had to do so for many years now?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I was not aware of that specific fact, but I thank the noble Lord for raising it.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that agriculture is not the fundamental problem in this respect? However, the public perceives it to be so because people see great hoses spraying over fields. But that is only a small percentage of the usage. Is he aware that, fundamentally, it is industrial and residential development that causes the problem? Is he further aware that in many cases the advice of the NRA is not taken and that, statutorily, it does not have to be taken, by local authorities?
Earl Howe: My Lords, both the water undertakers and the NRA distribute publicity on the subject of water conservation, which is a serious matter. My noble friend is quite right to say that such problems arise in part from increased demand. I simply point out that a casual householder who leaves a sprinkler running for hours ought to be aware that in one hour at least as much water can be used as an average family uses in a single day, without necessarily benefiting his garden.

Former Soviet Union: Assistance
11.25
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made with humanitarian and know-how assistance to the former Soviet Union and to former communist states in central and eastern Europe.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the know-how fund for central and eastern Europe and the Soviet Union is going well. We have so far committed some £55 million to over 400 projects. Other western governments are using our know-how fund as a model for their own. Our humanitarian aid is also much appreciated. We are helping to meet the

1105
immediate needs for food, medicines and animal feed for the former Soviet Union. We are also providing emergency assistance to Albania and Yugoslavia.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. However, can he say a little more about the criteria that he used in deciding how assistance should be given? Further, how is the balance being made between sharing skills and technological knowledge on the one hand and assistance in kind on the other which, if not sensitively handled, can smother local initiative and production? Can the Minister also tell the House what is happening about Albania which does not have as much political significance as some of the other countries but whose situation is desperate in human terms?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the know-how fund budget has more than trebled since 1990. Indeed, as I said, for 1992–93 it is £50 million. Britain has committed about £80 million for technical assistance to meet immediate needs for humanitarian assistance in the former Soviet Union. There is £50 million for the know-how fund and £20 million for feed grain for St. Petersburg, £8 million for the Chancellor's financial sector training initiative and £2 million for emergency medical assistance. But the main effort is with our partners through the EC. Britain is contributing £300 million towards the European Community's £1.57 billion programme of food aid credit and food aid grants.
The noble Lord raised the question of Albania. As part of the initial European Community effort, Britain contributed £2.2 million worth of medical aid and wheat to Albania. We are also supporting initiatives to the British NGOs and relief agencies in Albania. So far a total of £180,000 has been given to Feed The Children, £200,000 to the British Red Cross and £35,000 to Oxfam.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the need for this humanitarian assistance exists right now? If reports, which indicate that the allocation and distribution of European Community aid is subject to chronic delays, are true, can he say what progress is being made in that respect and also what the Government are doing to help co-ordinate and implement the aid?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I acknowledge that there have been delays. I believe that the noble Baroness is possibly referring to the delay regarding beef. It was stored for longer than we would have wished. In fact, I think that it is more a question of misunderstanding with the European Community over labelling. Such problems have been resolved.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that parliamentary delegations have recently visited the Baltic states? If that is so, can he say whether such matters have been discussed there? Further, in view of Finland's possible accession to the
1106
European Community in the reasonably near future, can my noble friend say what aid will be going to Estonia which is very near the Finnish border?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am sorry to have to tell my noble friend that I would need notice of such a question. However, I shall endeavour to find out the information and write to him.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in view of Britain's very generous contribution—as evidenced by the figures the Minister has just given to the House—which makes us all feel good, have we therefore not a right to ensure that, within the United Nations and the EC, distribution is dealt with efficiently and that the contribution we are making is not wasted?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we are contributing a six-man team to the EC task force to ensure that the aid distribution is properly monitored.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the greatest humanitarian tragedy is unfolding in Nagorno Karabakh? Can he say what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government through the European Community or through the United Nations to try to bring peace to an area where thousands of people are suffering and dying?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition raises a very germane point. The tragedy in Nagorno Karabakh beggars description. I have had a first-hand account of the situation from my noble friend Lady Cox who, I believe, may well be in the region now. I am sure that the House would wish me to pay tribute to her incredible personal courage in what she has done. Britain makes a significant contribution to the EC budget for emergency food aid for which Armenia and Azerbaijan are both eligible.
The Commission has just announced a £250,000 emergency aid package for Nagorno Karabakh. Britain also contributes towards the excellent work of the International Red Cross which has just been allowed to become involved in the region. However, I do not under-estimate the desperate problems of the region.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I should like to endorse and support the remarks he made about the noble Baroness, Lady Cox.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will realise that he will receive a great deal of support from all sides of the House when responding to the needs of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, but will he take this opportunity to assure us that everything that is being done is additional and is in no way at the expense of our response to the even greater needs of the third world in terms of both financial and other resources, and the intellectual and administrative input into the work that is being carried out?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I was also grateful yesterday to hear him acknowledge the work of my right honourable friend Mrs. Chalker. Perhaps I may

1107
take this opportunity to confirm that the aid to Central and Eastern Europe and to the former Soviet Union is separate from and additional to the aid to the developing countries.

Orimulsion
11.30 a.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the import and burning of orimulsion.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the type and quantity of fuel used by the electricity generators is an operational matter for the companies concerned, subject to emission limits imposed by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it true that a half a million tonnes of that fuel were burned last year and that PowerGen and National Power have contracted for another half a million tonnes? Is it not the case that the Government's own pollution watchdog and the National Rivers Authority have forecast that, if that fuel continues to be burned, it will both poison the rivers and gravely increase the amount of acid rain?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, without the necessary safeguards, it may indeed be the case that orimulsion would have the effect that the noble Lord describes, but it is for Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution to make sure that nothing is burned that would have the effect that the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that there is particular concern about the burning of that fuel in Pembroke, where the Government have been advised of forecasts that, if that fuel is burned at the Pembroke station, many of the most beautiful areas of our country will be despoiled through the increase in acid rain? Do the Government intend to do anything to protect both the countryside and the people before rather than after that happens?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word about Pembroke. Under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, National Power applied for consent from the Secretary of State to fit electrostatic precipitators. I cannot comment in too much detail on that as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role in deciding the application. National Power also requires an authorisation from HMIP before it can burn orimulsion at Pembroke. An application has been made and HMIP has served a formal notice on the company requiring further information to be provided. The Government have established a strong regulatory framework under the Environmental Protection Act. It would be wrong for them to second-guess that body and we should be open to criticism if we did so.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, in addition to the important environmental considerations that have been raised by my noble friend Lord Hatch—and the acid rain threat to Wales and the high sulphur emissions over Pembroke cannot be over-emphasised —does the Minister not agree that the power generating companies' longer term proposals to import up to 10 million tonnes of that tacky substance are part of the deeper problems of sourcing the United Kingdom's energy consumption? Are not the policies of the privatised generating companies, such as the proposed massive imports of orimulsion, the massive imports of foreign coal and the dash for gas, short-term and contrary to our national interests? Does the Minister agree that basically they arise from the lack of a national energy policy? Do we not need planned distribution of energy use in this country, with a diversified portfolio of sources, to include domestic coal with cleaner technology?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we have discussed coal at length recently. We wish to have the largest coal industry that is compatible with that industry being economic. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, says that we do not have an energy policy, but I should have thought that our policy was fairly concise. We have liberated the generators to seek the best markets and we have strong regulations to control them. The party opposite seeks to increase energy prices without any long-term environmental benefit, which, besides having a debilitating effect on the economy, shows a certain disregard for the poorer members of our community.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister has given me a very fair answer and I am glad that the Government are aware of this matter. However, given that the Minister has referred to the inspectorate and to the provisions that it observes, does he accept that those provisions and safeguards were set before the extent of acid rain was known?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, that is perfectly true. Some of the provisions pre-date the Act, but they have been increased. Perhaps it will help the noble Lord if I write to him about the conditions that HMIP would impose for the burning of orimulsion, which are too long to speak about now.

Business
11.35 a.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, after the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill, my noble friend Lord Astor will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on a national lottery that has been made in another place.

Education (Schools) Bill
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch.

1109
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clause 1,

Clause 5,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Clause 6,

Clause 3,

Clause 7,

Clause 4,

Clause 8,

Clause 9,

Clause 14,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 10 to 12,

Schedule 3,

Clause 13,

Clauses 15 to 21,

Schedule 4,

Schedule 5.—(Earl Howe)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill
11.36 a.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purpose of Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a short Bill but an important one for both Houses. Before describing its provisions, I owe the House a short explanation of its origins, which lie in the Ibbs report to the House of Commons Commission in 1990. Sir Robin Ibbs and his group proposed a radical change in the way services are provided for the House of Commons, in particular that it should take over responsibility for its own works and printing services. Noble Lords will be aware that we subsequently decided to follow suit and a number of steps have already been taken to give effect to the proposals.
The Offices Committee has restructured itself. New financial management proposals have been put in hand. A Director of Works for both houses has been appointed. We are well on the way to ending the allied service arrangements under which the Department of the Environment and Her Majesty's Stationery Office previously looked after our works and printing. I am glad to record the welcome co-operation which we have received from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Controller of HMSO in moving towards an orderly transfer of Vote provision for those services, the target date for which is 1st April.
I am also glad to say that the two Houses are moving closely in step. One of the more notable events
1110
has been the drawing up of an agreement between the two Houses about how joint works services are to be financed and managed. Copies of this Memorandum of Understanding, signed by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees from this House and Mr. Speaker from the other place, have been placed in the Library.
This development is in fact a logical extension of the agreement of 1965, under which the House assumed control of those parts of the Palace of Westminster occupied by the Lords. The Lords and Commons are now taking on responsibility for the maintenance of the building; but it remains a Royal Palace and it has therefore been necessary to ensure that Her Majesty the Queen is content with what is proposed. Her consent on Second Reading, which I announced before I began my speech, is in this instance no mere formality and I am grateful to Her Majesty's advisers for their assistance in bringing the scheme to the stage it has now reached.
I should emphasise that, although full Vote control will pass to the two Houses on 1st April, the works services themselves will be taken over physically at a slightly slower place. Arrangements have to be made for the transfer of the Parliamentary Works Office from the Department of the Environment to Parliament and for some recruitment. This process will be complete by the end of the next financial year at the latest. For pay and rations purposes, the staff will become part of the Department of the Serjeant at Arms in the House of Commons, but for all practical purposes, they will be staff serving both Houses equally.
I now come to why we have to have a Bill. With the two Houses in control of their own accommodation and works services we shall become the owners and leaseholders of property, not the Palace itself of course but buildings like Abbey Gardens and Norman Shaw and the parts of Millbank that we are going to lease. There will be work contracts to enter into, and we may wish on occasion to sue contractors —they may even wish to sue us.
That is where we get into deep legal waters: and the fact of the matter is that neither House constitutes a legal persona, able to do the sort of things one inevitably has to do as the owner of property. It is not an entirely new problem and I have to concede that up to now we have somehow managed to muddle through. Clerks of Parliaments have for instance entered into contracts making themselves personally liable, which has been very brave of them.
But it is agreed by all who have studied the problem that a proper solution must be found before major services can be taken over and valuable properties acquired on behalf of both Houses. Various possibilities have been canvassed. The one that has finally commended itself is to establish a corporate body for each House in the form of what is known as a corporation sole. The appropriate office holder in this House to have that responsibility is the Houses's senior permanent Officer and Accounting Officer, the Clerk of the Parliaments. In another place the

1111
Corporate Officer will be the Clerk of the House of Commons, or the Under Clerk of the Parliaments, as he is correctly described in the Bill.
The accounting officer duties of the two Clerks will be burdensome and all legal documents will be in their names but under the Bill their functions as Corporate Officers may be carried out by the Clerk Assistant or any other Officer of the House authorised by the Clerk, including in particular the Director of Works.
The establishment of the two corporations is the heart of the Bill, but later clauses provide for the making of the necessary transfers of property and of the rights and liabilities connected with it. There is also a provision to limit the effect of Section 21 of the Crown Lands Act 1851, which is the piece of legislation by virtue of which the Secretary of State exercises his present functions within the Palace of Westminster.
There is another part of the Bill which needs some detailed explanation. Clause 4 rectifies an anomaly which has been encountered in other contexts where civil servants have been transferred to new undertakings in the public service. Under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, purely technical redundancies can arise for people who, to all intents and purposes, will be doing the same job under essentially the same terms of service. Here, employees of the Parliamentary Works Office in the Department of the Environment are to be transferred and become employees of Parliament, and Clause 4 extinguishes any resulting technical redundancy rights. I can assure the House that the clause will have no effect at all on actual terms of service or on pension rights, and if by any chance any transferred employee were later to become redundant his rights would not be affected in any way.
I shall now go very briefly through the clauses. Clauses 1 and 2 establish the two Clerks as corporations sole, and I congratulate the Clerk of the Parliaments on his corporation —I mean, incorporation. Subsections (6) and (7) of each clause make it clear that the Corporate Officers do not enjoy Crown immunity unless Her Majesty provides otherwise by Order in Council.
Clauses 3 and 5 provide for the Secretary of State to make a scheme or schemes for the transfer of property, including rights and liabilities, from the Department of the Environment to the two new Parliamentary Corporations. Clause 4 contains the employment provisions which I described a few moments ago.
Clause 6 ensures that gifts expressed as gifts to the House of Lords or the House of Commons have effect as gifts to the Parliamentary Corporations. Clause 7 contains transitional and consequential provisions, including the one limiting the effect of Section 21 of the Crown Lands Act 1851 which I have already described.
This may be the moment to acknowledge our debt to those who over the centuries have cared for the Palace of Westminster, beginning with the Clerk of the King's Works who 600 years ago was the predecessor of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Coming to the present day, we should express our gratitude to
1112
all the staff of the Parliamentary Works Office who keep this business in good order through storm and sunshine.
Finally, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this, although procedurally a government Bill, has all-party support and in another place was unusual for having as supporters, except for Mr. Speaker, every member of the House of Commons Commission.
I am sure that the whole House will welcome this Bill and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Waddington.)
11.45 a.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for explaining a short but complicated Bill. As he said, it is a step in the implementation of the Ibbs Report. We are indebted to Sir Robin Ibbs for guiding us along the road to a more modern system. As the noble Lord said, a number of important steps in relation to services have already been taken.
My first reaction on reading the Bill was to ask why legislation was necessary to readjust the responsibilities for the various services, but, as the noble Lord has explained, works contracts, leases and property must be someone's responsibility. The obvious person to undertake that responsibility is the Clerk of the Parliaments in this House and the Senior Clerk in another place.
The point is especially relevant in the House of Commons, which has a changing Membership which ceases to exist when Parliament is dissolved. We are on the threshold of such a proceeding at present. They have coped up to now because the Secretary of State for the Environment has held the property. As the noble Lord explained, in the Bill we are giving the respected Clerk of the Parliaments new responsibilities and a new title. He is to become a corporation sole. Let me say at once that he does not look like a corporation sole. We shall continue to think of him and refer to him as the Clerk of the Parliaments.
The noble Lord took us through the clauses, and I should like to ask him some brief questions. First, what is the purpose and significance of the provisions in Clauses 1 and 2 which refer to Crown immunity? I note Clause 1(6) in particular. It would be helpful if he could give us some short clarification. I turn to another point; namely, the control of the Palace of Westminster under the new system. The powers of the Corporate Officer are listed in Clause 1(3). The words:
"for any purpose of the House of Lords",
are used. We note that the building—the Palace of Westminster—remains the property of Her Majesty the Queen. It is the appurtenances and responsibilities we find in Clause 1 which fall upon the shoulders of the corporation sole.
The noble Lord will confirm that until now the Secretary of State for the Environment has been involved and interested in all the matters we are now discussing. He has been responsible for the maintenance of the property, the contracts and so forth. The House must assume that when the Bill

1113
becomes law the Secretary of State for the Environment will have no responsibilities here. The Clerk of the Parliaments and the Members of the House will have all the responsibility. Is that not the core of the Bill? In that case, this is a welcome step forward, for it must be right that Members of both Houses, not the Executive, should be responsible for their respective parts of the building.
We are of course worried about the effect of the Bill on the staff of both Houses. Here, Clauses 4 and 5, dealt with by the noble Lord, are relevant. Will the staff of the Parliamentary Works Office become members of the new Parliamentary Works Directorate? I listened carefully to the noble Lord and I assume that he can confirm that the Transfer of Employment Regulations will apply here.
As concerns costs and expenditure—and this is a matter of central interest to all of us—I understand that the House of Commons will bear 60 per cent. of the costs and that this House will bear the remaining 40 per cent. That will be of interest to noble Lords.
Finally, the noble Lord referred to the history of the Clerk of the King's Works and said that the Bill brings 1,000 years of history to an end in the sense that the Royal Servants will no longer bear the responsibilities. As regards the Clerk of the King's Works, 600 years of history terminate with the Bill. If that is so, it means that in a small and technical Bill we are writing a footnote in parliamentary history.
On behalf of my noble friends, I welcome the Bill as a step forward in the right direction. I was a member of the House of Commons Commission when it was set up in 1975 and I am glad to he associated in a small way with the passage of the Bill. I must stress, however, that I support the noble Lord in what he said, namely that it is crucial that if the Palace of Westminster is to be run efficiently and properly, then the two Houses must go forward hand in hand and in complete understanding. Otherwise, the roof of the building may fall in. I wish the new arrangements all success and the Bill a fair passage.
11.51 a.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I shall be brief in dealing with this short but in its way important Bill. It is based on the Ibbs Report, as both the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said. Judging from what the Ibbs Report had to say, it changes our long overdue financial arrangements. The report states:
"Good financial management systems … do not exist.
The House lacks most of the financial management tools which are now common throughout both the private sector and the public service. Full costs are not brought together, nor are comprehensive budgets prepared for the various activities. Heads of Department are not required to work towards financial targets. Forward plans, long or short term, are not regularly prepared; and there are no reports of achievement against requirement. Financial management information is not routinely provided in a … usable form. There is no professional financial advice available".
This relates to an organisation which is never slow to criticise the financial management of other organisations with which it deals. So something along these lines is plainly long overdue. It is surely a step in the
1114
right direction. It is much in the spirit of the present Government and of us on these Benches to put the responsibility on to people who are directly concerned and who should carry that responsibility.
Thus we must welcome the change which brings control over the building—not the fabric of the building but all else —into the hands of the people who will use it. We welcome the new role of the Clerk of the Parliaments as the corporation sole. Is it spelt S-O-L-E or S-O-U-L? I am not sure. In any case, we welcome his introduction and installation in this new position. I hope that it will not land him in any more personal liabilities. We know of the liabilities that are now under the Charities Bill being pushed, for example, on to voluntary trustees. Are similar liabilities being put on to the Clerk of the Parliaments? If he goes wrong and runs into any kind of debt or gets into trouble under employment law, who is responsible? Is he personally responsible? Are we all responsible? Or what happens?
It is good that we shall have direct control over our physical environment. Since we are talking about the physical environment, I shall not lose this opportunity to ask that when we obtain control a high priority should be given to doing something about the appalling ventilation in this Chamber? I am not the only person, I am sure, who finds that after an hour and a half in the Chamber I run out of oxygen, if not out of steam. I have to go out—but not into the bar —to recover; outside I recover in a quarter of an hour. It is not the impact of your Lordships' speeches; I am sure that it is the impact of the lack of oxygen in the Chamber. I do not believe that it would pass under the health and safety regulations. We talk a great deal about the health and safety of workers and do precious little about ourselves. Now that we have control, I hope we shall do something quickly.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, we all note the remarks made by the noble Baroness. I have a great deal of sympathy with what she said. The Clerk of the Parliaments will have no doubt whatever as to what will be one of his first duties after taking on these onerous responsibilities on 1st April. The office is spelt like a fish, S-O-L-E, I am pretty sure.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for his comments on the Bill. I understand why he began by wondering why it was necessary to have legislation at all. The Government started by wondering whether legislation was necessary but the noble Lord explained very clearly indeed why it is. I mentioned in the course of my remarks what a bizarre situation it was that Clerks, when entering into computer contracts and the like, take the responsibility entirely on their own. Of course any sensible person would know that they were not standing on their own; somebody was standing behind them. But in law they were standing entirely on their own.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked about Crown immunity. I am glad that he did. The provision in the Bill appears as a result of an amendment moved in another place by the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, Mr. Ray Powell, who is a Member of Parliament. The reason why he moved it is that present planning law does not

1115
apply to this Royal Palace. Of course when one thinks in terms of new parliamentary buildings, whether they are on Bridge Street or anywhere else, without a provision like this one would be in a position where planning law did not apply to the main parliamentary building but it did to the offshoots. It seems sensible that the same procedures which are designed to avoid any conflict with the planning authorities should apply in the case of any new buildings.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, the Secretary of State for the Environment has been responsible for the maintenance of the building. From now onwards we shall be responsible. That seems entirely right. The staff who are now employed by the Department of the Environment will become employees of the Parliament Works Directorate. The provisions in Clause 4 are merely designed to avoid a technical redundancy taking place when staff cease to be employees of the Department of the Environment and become employees of the directorate. But they will be employed on precisely the same terms of service and will not be disadvantaged in any way at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to 600 years of history. First of all, it was the monarch, then a servant of the monarch and then it was the Clerk who looked after this Royal Palace and took on wider responsibilities. Eventually it became a Minister of the Crown. There was the arrival of the Ministry of Works at the beginning of the war which later became part of the Department of the Environment. All that long history has come to an end and we ourselves are now taking responsibility for these matters, and quite rightly so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was absolutely right to remind us of the stinging criticisms of the way in which some of our affairs are managed. None of us here had any doubt at all of the wisdom of the proposals made by Sir Robin Ibbs and his committee. As was said earlier, we have wasted no time in taking all the necessary steps—apart from this step of legislation—to implement his proposals. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and to the noble Baroness for their comments. I am glad that the Bill has received the warm welcome it deserves.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord can help me as regards Clause 6 of the Bill. The question I am asking may be irrelevant, in which case the noble Lord will tell me so. On the matter of gifts to the House of Lords, I should be interested to know whether, as regards pictures or gifts of that kind, the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords will have charitable status. That makes a considerable difference to the donor.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am advised that he would not have that status.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, that is rather a serious state of affairs.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister as I did not realise we were going to discuss this Bill today. The Bill seems to impose responsibility on the Clerk of the Parliaments for everything. Is that reasonably fair? Will he not have an advisory board or
1116
some general board to direct him? I refer to an example that I have used before. The situation over car parking at the House of Lords is unreasonable. If one does not arrive two hours before the House sits, one cannot park one's car. The issue has been raised on many occasions. It is purely a matter for the works and buildings committee. I doubt whether it should be the responsibility of the Clerk of the Parliaments. There should be other mechanisms to deal with those matters. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me an idea of how these matters will be managed.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I can satisfy my noble friend's query. At the present time the Clerk of the Parliaments only acts in accordance with our wishes as expressed through the various committees of the House. We have restructured our committees to make them more effective and to bring them more in line with the Ibbs proposals. However, the situation will not really change. The Clerk of the Parliaments has always done his level best—I do not believe he has ever failed—to reflect the wishes of noble Lords. When he acts as a corporation sole, he will in effect act in accordance with our wishes as expressed by Members of the relevant committees of this House.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I wish to emphasise what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said about trying to obtain what most of us have been trying to obtain for a long while. If anyone wants to come and sit beside me he will have to sit in an appalling blast of cold air. When the House is full, there is a blast of hot air. The heating is the wrong way round. There is a lift out in the corridor that we have complained about for years. However, nothing has been done. There is a room along the corridor that we gave to the House of Commons. I do not know how long ago it was when that occurred. The House of Commons has now acquired an enormous palace across the road and has never inquired whether we want our room back. If we now have the power to sort out these matters, we should get on and do so.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the right thing for me to do is to ensure that the noble Lord's remarks are conveyed to the relevant committees of the House which are responsible for the various aspects of the running of the House to which the noble Lord referred.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

National Lottery
12.4 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement on the national lottery White Paper which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a Statement about the Government's plans, set out in a White Paper being published today, to introduce a national lottery for good causes. As honourable Members will know, we have been considering for some time the merits

1117
of a national lottery. It raises a number of complex practical issues, but the potential benefits are substantial. In the past in our own country a lottery funded the foundation of the British Museum. More recently, in Canada, a lottery also helped to fund the Olympic Games. A lottery helped to fund the building of the Sydney Opera House.
"Many other countries have long been using the proceeds of national lotteries to fund a wide range of projects which improve the quality of life of their people. Every other country in Western Europe has a national lottery. In the years ahead it will become increasingly difficult in practice to prevent their lottery tickets being sold in this country. Without a national lottery of our own, other countries rather than our own will benefit.
"In the light of all these considerations, and bearing in mind the opportunities it will give us to raise substantial sums for the public benefit, the Government have decided to introduce a national lottery to be promoted throughout the United Kingdom. We propose that the national lottery proceeds should be used to support projects of lasting benefit to the nation. The good causes to be funded will be sports, arts, our heritage and charities. This means that sporting facilities could be further improved and new ones provided; a whole range of additional facilities for young people could be developed; our historic buildings, houses, museums, galleries and cathedrals could be restored and worthwhile new buildings constructed; art treasures could be purchased for our national collection; and a wide range of other charities could be supported.
"A national lottery could be operating by 1994, but it will take some time to become fully established. Once fully developed, it could raise up to £1 billion a year for good causes. I must emphasise that this will be additional funding. The Government do not intend that the money provided from the lottery should substitute for existing expenditure programmes. Nor do we believe that lottery proceeds should go to the main areas of public expenditure, such as the National Health Service. These services are of fundamental importance to the community and must continue to be funded by the Exchequer in the normal way.
"We have concluded that a single national lottery is the best way forward. This would allow major prizes to be offered and it would maximise the potential funds which could be raised for good causes, while minimising the risk of fraud or mismanagement.
"The White Paper sets out the broad framework for the operation of the national lottery. There will be an independent National Lottery Board whose task will be to distribute the proceeds of the lottery. The day-to-day operation and management of the lottery will be undertaken by the private sector under contract and subject to strict regulation.
"Today's White Paper sets out a number of practical issues, and on some of them we want to consult interested parties. We are aware of the
1118
concerns of the football pools companies and others. We intend to discuss their concerns with them and to assess the possible effect of a national lottery on their activities. In the light of these discussions we shall consider whether there is a case for any changes in the controls under which they operate at present.
"Charities will be among the beneficiaries of the lottery. But we still need to consider how best to protect their interests, both in the allocation of the proceeds and the effect on their income from existing small lotteries. We would welcome the views of all charitable organisations on both these points.
"A national lottery will be a popular development of great significance. It provides a unique opportunity to improve in a lasting way the quality of our national life. I look forward to its early introduction".
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset that it seems an absurdity to come before the House in the dying days of a Parliament with proposals to establish a national lottery which could and perhaps should have been made months if not years ago. We can be forgiven if we feel that this measure has something more to do with the imminence of a general election than the establishment of a great new national institution which will be of lasting benefit to the arts, sport, the heritage, small charities and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. I only express the hope that the party opposite has banked the cheques from Messrs. Littlewoods and Vernons into its war chest for the election. If that has not been done, who knows what effect this measure might have upon the balance sheet of the party opposite.
Quite apart from the timing of this measure, if I may say so, this is the most extraordinary way to proceed. As late as January, as my right honourable friend the Shadow Home Secretary, Mr. Hattersley, pointed out, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Home Office said no fewer than seven times that a decision on these matters could not be taken without careful examination and consideration. He was particularly precise about the need to examine the impact on the pools industry
"to give those directly affected a chance to express their views".
Have they been given the chance directly to express their views? So far as I know, virtually no consultation has been undertaken.
A decision has been made. Paragraph 3 of the White Paper is quite clear about that. It says that the Government have decided to introduce a national lottery.
That is putting the cart before the horse. One takes the decision, and having taken the decision, one then proceeds to consult those bodies which will be most affected and which one had promised would be consulted before the decision was taken. I am reminded of the Red Queen in "Alice"—sentence first, verdict afterwards.
One could go on about that decision. Have the Churches been consulted? Have the Chapels been

1119
consulted? I am sure that where I come from the Chapels and the Churches will have distinct views upon the morality of introducing a national lottery. Have the Government had the benefit of that religious input? Have they consulted the industries which will be most affected? Not as far as I know.
I want to make two points about the Statement itself. It is very important that any money which is raised by a national lottery which goes to sport, the arts, the national heritage and what-have-you, should be genuinely additional money. The Government should not he surprised if we make that point with some vehemence in view of the way in which the issue of additionality in relation to payments from the European Social Fund and the European Regional Fund have been treated by the Government. Any money raised by a national lottery must not be an excuse for the Government to reduce public expenditure.
The Labour Party position is perfectly clear. We made it clear in a policy document which was published some months ago. We shall give serious consideration to the establishment of a national lottery. On one side, there are certain benefits which may well flow from a lottery, but we are not prepared to introduce a national lottery before we have consulted those interests which are most affected. We shall not, as the Government are doing, take the decision first and consult afterwards.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement of his right honourable friend on the lottery. I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, although, at the end of the noble Lord's statement I was not entirely clear about the Labour Party's position except that it will consider the matter and, I suppose, keep it under permanent review.
The issue is one which gives rise to certain obvious questions. It is one thing to tolerate gambling but it is quite another for the Government positively to encourage it. It is on that aspect which the chapels to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred may have a point to make. Yet that is what the Government will have to do if the lottery is to collect the sums which the Government have in mind, namely, £1 billion a year. It is rather odd for this Government of all governments to nationalise gambling, which is a well-known addiction like alcoholism or drug taking. One can become addicted to gambling.
I shall always remember the answer given by a Liberal politician and Member of Parliament, Sir Harcourt Johnson, of somewhat Whiggish views, when asked whether he was in favour of gambling. He said that he was not. When asked why in that case he gambled so much himself on the racecourse—which was well known—he replied that he could afford it. That seems to me to be a perfectly rational answer. Gambling is an addiction and is accepted to be an addiction and it is odd that the Government should positively encourage it.
The Statement indicates that the sum raised will be devoted to almost every good cause which has
1120
occurred to the Home Secretary in reaching the decision. Despite the fact that the Government do not intend that the money should provide a substitute for existing programmes, there is a danger that that is precisely what will happen. It will be used as an excuse to divert funds from causes which warrant, deserve and should have overt government support. It will reduce the Government's responsibility for funding such services as the arts. That suspicion is confirmed and made apparent by the Statement itself, in which it is said that the lottery should not be a substitute for existing programmes:
"Nor do we believe that lottery proceeds should go to the main areas of public expenditure, such as the National Health Service. These services are of fundamental importance to the community".
One can only conclude from that that the Government regard the arts as a service which is not of fundamental importance to the community.
It is precisely that overt implication in the Statement of first and second-class categories of importance which worries me. It seems to me that we can take it from the Statement that the arts are not to be regarded as a service of fundamental importance to the community in the eyes of the present Government. It is for that reason that I find the Statement a source of very real anxiety.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have never heard such a muddled welcome as that given by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to this proposal. He accused the Government of various things but his own reply was the most muddled I have heard on the subject of a national lottery. In respect of his remarks concerning his party's policy, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
My right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Lloyd, made it clear that the Government warmly welcomed the idea of a national lottery and he consulted on how best to proceed. That is what we are doing now. The White Paper is a consultation document. That is obvious. We said that we would consult and we shall consult those concerned. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been in touch with the pools companies and the pools promoters and we shall consult them in the future.
Both noble Lords mentioned additionality. The best that I can do is to draw their attention to paragraph 41 of the White Paper, which says that:
"Under standard conventions the disbursements of a national lottery will be classified as public expenditure in the national accounts. The Government does not intend that the money provided from the lottery should substitute for that provided in other ways".
That is obvious.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, mentioned gambling. I remind him that the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, said in his report on gambling in 1978 that a lottery was a harmless entertainment providing a rare opportunity to improve the quality of British life.
I also draw the noble Lord's attention to how much we have spent on the arts. Arts spending in 1991–92 is 56 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79. The

1121
Office of Arts and Libraries programme of expenditure for 1990–91 is £560 million. That is a very real commitment.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down—and I apologise for interrupting the right reverend Prelate, who was about to get to his feet—will he look at paragraph 3 of the White Paper, which states very firmly:
"It is against this background that the Government has now decided"?
It does not say that the Government are consulting as to whether they should take that decision but that the Government have now decided. The noble Viscount may rubbish what I said but there is no question that the decision has been taken and consultations are to follow.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is perfectly clear. We produced the White Paper so that we are able to consult. That is what my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said earlier this year.
12.20 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, I found the Minister's Statement melancholy listening. I recognise that the desire to be rich is fairly low in any list of vices and does not do a great deal of harm. But it is vice: "Thou shalt not covet" and greed. It is human experience that makes it one of the seven deadly sins.
At present we hear many calls for a moral lead in the nation. I am one of those who believe that moral leads are too important to be left to the pulpit. They need to be indulged in by those who have power and authority and by governments, to whom the power to rule has been entrusted, in one sense, by God. It can be left to private enterprise to meet the needs of private vices. That is surely not the job of government.
I listened with interest to the various good causes which the lottery will support. However, over and over again we return to the issue that those good causes are either worthy of public munificence and private charity or they are not. If they are not, then to feed them in such an underhand way, by pandering to people's weaknesses, seems to me to be degrading, even though cathedrals come on the list of those who will benefit. It is a degrading way to do things.
I hope that wiser thoughts will eventually prevail. A former Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher, gave mortal offence in this Chamber by describing Macmillan's premium bonds as a squalid lottery. I find the same words in my mind this morning.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate does not support the lottery. I point out to him that we are the only country in western Europe which does not have a national lottery. Indeed, until quite recently we were the only country in the whole of Europe, apart from Albania, that did not have a national lottery. To be left in that class with that nation seems very odd.
There are many lotteries in Europe which will extend over national boundaries. Therefore the last thing one wants is for people in this country to buy
1122
lottery tickets for a benefit that goes somewhere else and not into the many good causes in this country. That is important.
Lotteries are not new in this country. The first recorded lottery in England took place in 1569, to raise money for the repair of the Cinque Ports. There have been lotteries in this country for a number of years. The last one took place in 1826. Before then lotteries had raised a great deal of money for special purposes. For example, the first Westminster Bridge was built with funds from lotteries in 1739. I believe that a national lottery will enable many good causes in this country to benefit.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the success of a national lottery depends on popular support? Can he tell the House what representations the Home Secretary has received from the public for or against a national lottery? My noble friend Lord Richard brought up the subject of consultation. Can the noble Viscount say whether the Government will withdraw the proposal, if consultation shows adverse reaction to a national lottery?
I ask the noble Viscount quite seriously what has made the Government change their mind quite radically. He may recollect that two years ago there was a debate in this House about the virtues of a national lottery. Perhaps I may just quote one or two lines from the response of his noble friend Lord Ferrers. He said:
"No other country which is comparable to ours appears to have as varied a gambling industry as we have with which any new gambling enterprise would have to compete. It is commonly assumed that a major lottery would divert current spending, in particular away from the football pools. I suggest that there must be a limit to the amount of money which is waiting to find a home in the general area of gambling … There is certainly some concern that the lotteries would nevertheless draw from a pool of money which charities as a whole could otherwise tap directly and more cost-effectively". —[Official Report, 28/2/90; col. 802.]
It is therefore of interest that the Minister's presentation of the Statement today did not bring up any of the anxieties that the Government had before. It would be interesting to learn how they resolved those anxieties in order to bring forward this highly enthusiastic Statement presenting a national lottery.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, perhaps I may draw her attention to paragraph 33 of the White Paper about the effect on charities:
"One of the concerns most frequently voiced about the impact of the national lottery is that charities will lose income from existing small lotteries and from charitable donations generally".
It goes on:
"The Government want to consult widely with major charitable interests and will pay careful attention to their views".
We have received many representations and letters from members of the public in support of a national lottery. There has been support for a national lottery on both sides of another place. That is why the decision was made to bring in the White Paper to consult on a national lottery.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the noble Viscount withdraw the White Paper if the consultation shows an adverse reaction from those with whom the Government consult?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is a hypothetical question and I could not possibly answer it.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, I support my noble friend the Minister. Perhaps I may make just one comment. In the past 20 minutes I have never in the whole of my life heard more smug rubbish spoken.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's support, provided that his remark about smug rubbish was not addressed to this side of the House but to the other side.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the noble Viscount be willing to hear a word in favour of joy and liberty? I ask myself whether the worry about consultation is as necessary as has been made out. For years we have been talking openly in public and in the press about a national lottery. The Rothschild Report went into the matter with enormous thoroughness, but nothing was done.
We know fairly clearly the arguments against and in favour of this measure. Listening to some of the comments today, and especially the words of the right reverend Prelate, I was reminded of President Coolidge. On returning from church he was asked what the sermon had been about. He said that it had been about sin. Then: "What did the preacher say, Cal?"—"He was against it."
That is a perfectly natural reaction from people who feel sincerely that gambling is a great evil and should not be encouraged in any way. I do not share those views. I believe that it is one of the minor joys, although like alcohol it can bring great evils in its train. I feel that people should be free to engage in a national lottery. I should prefer to see the profits of such a venture go into the arts, sport and other good causes rather than into the pockets of the directors of Littlewoods. The pools have had it too good for too long without sufficient competition.
I am amused by the fact that the Government have produced competition, but in this case competition is provided by the state. I very much welcome the initiative of the Government. I am sure that they will listen to reactions to the White Paper. I feel that we ought to welcome it.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's welcome for this initiative. Many times in arts debates over the past few years he and I have discussed the possibility of a national lottery. Indeed, on many occasions I have been pressed for the formation of a national lottery. I am particularly delighted to be able to come forward today to announce that that will happen. Obviously, together with sport, charities and the heritage, the arts will be an important area of funding. We shall be able to look at museums, galleries and the possibilities of raising money through the lottery for buying pictures of great national importance. There are many areas in which a national lottery can be used.
1124
With regard to football pools, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already been in touch with the pools companies and pools promoters. We do not believe that a national lottery will necessarily be detrimental to them. We hope very much to consult with them. Indeed, a national lottery might be run by them: they could be one of the private companies that bids to run a lottery.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount will clarify one point. I have not seen the White Paper. However, I gather that it states that it is the intention of the Government that funds raised by the lottery should be additional to, and not substituted for, existing sources. What safeguards and insurance can one have to that effect? It seems extraordinarily difficult in practice to make sure that the lottery is not a substitute for existing sources rather than additional to them. How will that be achieved? How shall we know that the sums are additional? If the Government fail to increase their input one year, how shall we know that it is not because they feel that that input is being substituted by the lottery? What means have the Government of ensuring additional funds?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I can only draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, to paragraph 41 of the White Paper on additionality, to which I have already referred. It is important that it will not be the Government who hand out the money. It will be the National Lottery Board which hands out the money in the four areas I indicated.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, will the noble Viscount enlighten me on two points? First, during the debate on racing last year it was clearly stated by the Minister that it has been public policy, implemented by successive governments, that government should not encourage gambling. How does he reconcile that with the decision to go ahead with a lottery? Secondly, what makes him come to the conclusion that the late Lord Rothschild's views on the morality of gambling are conclusive? One gives him all credit for the work that he did on the commission for gambling.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, in answer to the question about the late Lord Rothschild's views, very simply it is a matter of reading his report. The national lottery is not hard gambling. There is a great difference. In effect it is a flutter, and not a very big flutter. We believe that tickets sold will probably cost in the region of 50p or £l. It is not a huge amount of money.
As I said, sports will be one of the areas to benefit. The noble Viscount may care to consider that, should Manchester be successful in the year 2000 in attracting the Olympic Games, a national lottery will by that stage be in operation. That could benefit Manchester.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Statement. I support him for the simplest of reasons. I am chairman of a small charity which, in the past year, has received quite a lot of money from, I believe, the only existing lottery company in Britain; it is called UK Charity Lotteries Limited. The company

1125
has attempted to operate in a small way. But very small and unfashionable charities, such as the one of which I am chairman, cannot raise money easily. If it were not for that small charity company, this year we would not have been able to survive. I know of quite a few other charities in the same position. The company has been operating for about a year or 18 months. A total of about £6 million has been contributed to small charities.
It becomes harder and harder to raise money. The right reverend Prelate rightly said that if a charity were worthy and if a cause were a good cause, then government, public funds or charitable donations should allow it to continue. That is a very good theory; but in practice it does not work. Many smaller charities which do good work but do not catch the public imagination or attract grand and influential celebrities to raise money for them simply do not receive money.
I strongly support a lottery for the simple reason that it will raise more money for charities which do not receive funds. That cannot be a bad thing. It would be a peculiarly British irony if it were money from gambling that funded places which provide treatment for a gambling addiction. I have spent much time trying to raise money from producers of alcoholic drinks and from the drug companies to fund treatment for alcoholics and drug addicts. Those producers have been rather reticent in coming forward. Yet they seem to do well out of the people which my organisations treat. If there is any way in which that position can be turned round slightly, I welcome it enormously.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's support. He speaks with great experience about charities, in particular medical charities. We believe that medical charities will be one of the important recipients from the lottery. On charities and charitable giving, we believe that most people continue to support their favourite charities. Charities will be among the beneficiaries of the national lottery. We are prepared to consider proposals to help existing charitable lotteries so that they do not suffer.
Perhaps I may point out to noble Lords that we have, all of us, at times indulged in a lottery. How many times have we been to village fetes? How many times has the right reverend Prelate been asked to buy a lottery ticket in order to support a specific cathedral? All of us in many ways regularly buy lottery tickets for the support of charities. Many organisations have benefited, whether they be charities, medical charities or possibly churches.

Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Scottish Power plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 British Telecommunications plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 British Gas plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Mercury Communications Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Scottish Hydro-Electric plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 British Alcan Primary and Recycling Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992
12.37 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 11th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the 14 draft orders standing on the Order Paper in my name all relate to matters of valuation and rating in Scotland. They conveniently divide into two groups and, with your Lordships' permission, I shall deal with them in this way.
The draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 and the draft Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 would set the level of industrial derating to apply in Scotland next year at 25 per cent. That is a reduction of five percentage points from the current level and is consistent with the Government's intention of phasing out industrial derating in parallel with the moves towards a national rate in Scotland at the level of the national non-domestic rate in England. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has announced a reduction in non-domestic rates next year of £60 million, and this allows a further reduction in the level of industrial derating to 25 per cent.
There are 12 draft orders relating to the rateable values for 1992–93 of the so-called formula valued industries. These are mainly public utilities which are not valued for rating by the regional assessors in the usual way but for which the rateable values are prescribed. The draft orders before the House today simply revise the rateable values prescribed for this year to take account both of the new level of industrial derating and also of material changes affecting the value of each industry's property holdings.
The orders in the main merely update for 1992–93 existing provisions which apply in respect of this financial year. I commend the orders to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 11th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, I thank the noble Lord for introducing these technical measures and explaining them so clearly. They are purely technical and we have no objection to them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Birmingham Heartlands Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1992
12.40 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 17th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of the order that we are debating today is to set up the Birmingham Heartlands Development Corporation. Historically, the heartlands area has been the industrial powerhouse of Birmingham—a teeming mass of manufacturing firms in the traditional engineering fields for which the West Midlands is rightly famous. In the early 1980s it suffered, together
1128
with so many other parts of our inner cities, from a significant loss of manufacturing capacity; and although that shake out brought with it a regrettable loss of jobs it also brought an opportunity to remodel this part of the city by reclaiming and redeveloping a number of major vacant sites. In 1986 no less than 300 acres of land in the heartlands area was statutorily derelict and a great deal more was neglected or under-used. Indeed, it was considered as a serious candidate for UDC status in 1986 at the time when the second generation development corporations were being set up.
But Birmingham City Council made very strong representations to allow the council, working in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce and a consortium of developers, to launch a homegrown alternative to an urban development corporation. We acceded because there was such evidence of local good will and genuine co-operation between public and private sectors in Birmingham at that time; and after a lengthy period of negotiations between the partners, Birmingham Heartlands Limited came into being in March 1988.
It is a tribute to the partners in that heartlands initiative that their commitment to the cause of East Birmingham has not faltered. But they will freely admit that, despite their great enthusiasm, the pace of redevelopment has fallen far short of the hopes in 1988 and there is so much still to do. As a percentage of the workforce, unemployment in the area currently stands at 27 per cent. About 10 per cent. of the heartlands area is statutorily derelict and about 100 vacant sites, which vary in size from 60 to many under two acres, remain in need of reclamation or redevelopment.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has taken a very close interest in the heartlands experiment to date. He made a number of visits during 1991 to assess the progress and problems on the ground. He was, therefore, sympathetic to the case put to him formally by Birmingham Heartlands Limited and Birmingham City Council in September 1991 that statutory UDC status for the heartlands area of East Birmingham would now bring considerable regeneration benefits. The Secretary of State has therefore agreed that a statutory UDC for the Birmingham heartlands area be set up.
We envisage that the lifetime of the Birmingham Heartlands UDC will be five years. Much valuable preparatory work has already been done and a basic development strategy, based on an original study by Roger Tym and partners in 1987, has met with general acceptance locally. The heartlands plan is already widely understood by the development industry.
The Birmingham Heartlands Development Corporation will have resources committed from the Department of the Environment of £50 million during a five-year period from April 1992. For year one, when inevitably there will be some time in the early part of the year before the corporation is at full working strength, we propose to set aside £8.5 million.
The development corporation will have powers to assemble land using compulsory purchase where necessary. It will be able to undertake land reclamation, provide serviced sites for development

1129
and offer grants to the private sector to secure the regeneration of its area. It is also intended that the development corporation takes over the role of planning authority for its area from the city council. To this end a planning functions order has been prepared and will be made immediately after the constitution and area order which we are debating today comes into force. It will be laid as soon as possible thereafter. We believe that it is desirable for a UDC to be a one stop shop for planning purposes. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that in the atmosphere of co-operation that exists in Birmingham there will be scope for agency arrangements to enable the city council to carry out much of the preliminary work on development control.
The Secretary of State will be appointing Sir Reginald Eyre as chairman of the new development corporation. Your Lordships may be aware that Sir Reginald has been chairman of Birmingham Heartlands Limited since its inception, and he will bring invaluable local expertise to the new UDC. It is also our intention that Sir Richard Knowles, currently deputy chairman of Birmingham Heartlands Limited and leader of Birmingham City Council, should be appointed deputy chairman of the UDC. There will be a further 10 members appointed—five from the city council and five from the private sector. The structure of the board, therefore, with strong local authority representation, will recognise the unique quality of partnership between the public and private sectors in East Birmingham.
I should emphasise that there have been extensive discussions locally about the proposal. All the interested parties in Birmingham support the creation of an urban development corporation which can operate along the lines that I have described.
By approving the order today the House will bring new confidence in the future to the heartlands area of East Birmingham. Those involved in the heartlands Venture since 1988 have had the foresight to see that sustainable regeneration for this part of Birmingham depends on having clear powers, reliable resources and the right structure. A UDC will be able to tackle the problems of East Birmingham with a balanced programme. It will link development opportunities to the employment needs and wider aspirations of local residents. It will offer wider housing choice, a greener environment and a better business climate. It will offer, quite simply, a brighter future for the people of East Birmingham. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 17th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1992 Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1992 Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1992 European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1992 Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1992
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move, That the draft regulations and orders laid before the House on 14th, 17th 19th and 21st February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I shall be brief. These draft regulations and orders are straightforward and uncontroversial, and I hope not to detain the House too long in consideration of them today.
The draft Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations amend regulation 64 of the Representation of the People Regulations 1986 to take account of changes made by the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Act 1991.
The draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations perform two different functions. First, they apply the provisions of the draft regulations which I have just described and which cover only parliamentary and local elections to cover European parliamentary elections as well. Secondly, they apply for the purposes of European parliamentary elections certain technical changes made by the Representation of the People Act 1991 concerning the recovery of returning officers' charges at parliamentary elections. They also apply to European parliamentary elections the provisions of the Transfer of Functions (Returning Officers' Charges) Order 1991 which transferred the functions of the Treasury in connection with such charges to the home departments.
The draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations perform the same two functions in respect of Northern Ireland.
Finally, the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order increases the limits on candidates' election expenses at parliamentary and local government elections throughout the United Kingdom to take account of inflation.
I commend these draft regulations and orders to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations and orders laid before the House on 14th, 17th 19th and 21st February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will readily understand the brevity of the noble Viscount's introduction of the orders. However, they are important and one should say a few words about them. That is part of our democratic process. I divide the contents of the orders into three parts. The first is the technical changes to which the noble Viscount referred in respect of the recovery of the recovery officers' charges in certain elections. The second is the change relating to absent voters. All noble Lords will appreciate any improvement in the provision for absent voting. In this case account is taken of the new disability living allowance.
I am sorry that I did not acquaint the noble Viscount in advance with these questions. In the absence of a reference number which applies to the mobility allowance, will there be attestation of an application to be made for this new order? We are now making quite clear in the orders that the new living allowance will not have a reference number whereas previously there was a reference number. The order says that despite having no reference number there will be no problem. But will that mean that there must be attestation?
The other important change is the increase in parliamentary and local government election expenses. I have calculated that that is a 4.5 per cent. increase all round. That seems reasonable. I should like to know whether there has been general consultation with the political parties on this matter. We give all the orders our full approval.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I believe that in the European context my noble friend referred to the transfer of certain functions from the Treasury to the Home Office. Will he explain to the House what those functions are and why they are being transferred?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I understand that instructions will be sent out containing all the necessary information.
I should say to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that there have been consultations between the two departments and elsewhere. It was decided that the functions were best joined to the specific home departments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend has not said what the functions are.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the functions are for the recovery of returning officers' charges at parliamentary elections. Those functions are to be transferred from the Treasury to the Home Office.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1992
12.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February he approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this draft order has two purposes. The first is to authorise the expenditure of an additional £49.2 million for the current financial year. This brings the total Estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services this year to some £4,725 million. The second purpose is to authorise the Vote-on-Account of some £2,140 million for 1992–93. This will enable services to continue until the 1992–93 main Estimates are brought before the House later this year.
The Northern Ireland public expenditure allocation has faced significant resource pressures this year, with expenditure on a number of demand-led programmes such as health and education being higher than anticipated. Extra demands placed on the law and order programme have also contributed to this but are not part of the Estimates we are considering today. In order to accommodate those new demands, a temporary pause on spending on new capital contracts was announced on 9th December. While this means that some projects are being deferred for a few months, the effects of this short delay will be marginal and will not adversely affect the delivery of services. Indeed the moratorium is already effectively drawing to a close. Departments are planning to release the projects which will not now involve expenditure until the 1992–93 financial year. Departments will also release projects selectively where resources permit.
I should like to set the Estimates in the context of the recent performance of the Northern Ireland economy which has weathered the recent recession remarkably well. Unemployment, although higher than any of us would wish, has risen by a much smaller extent in Northern Ireland over the past 12 months than in the UK as a whole. It now stands at 14.3 per cent. of the workforce, an increase of less than one percentage point over the past year and well below the peak of 17.7 per cent. in October 1986. Similarly, employment and output levels have held up better in Northern Ireland than in the remainder of the United Kingdom. We are nevertheless not complacent and efforts to strengthen the economy remain high on the Government's list of priorities. The indicators provide encouraging evidence of the resilience of the Northern Ireland economy and should mean that it is well placed to take advantage of the economic upturn.
With your Lordships' permission, I now turn to the main items in the order, starting with the Department of Agriculture's Vote 1. An additional £2.3 million is required for payments under the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Scheme and £4.4 million for the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance Scheme, reflecting increases in rates of allowances and in the numbers of eligible animals. These increases are, however, offset by reduced requirements elsewhere in the Vote.
In the Department of Agriculture's Vote 2, additional provision of £4.1 million is required, including £2.3 million for the disease eradication programme. The increases are fully offset by savings elsewhere in the Vote, resulting in a token increase of £1,000.
I now turn to the Department of Economic Development. In Vote 1, which covers expenditure on industrial support and regeneration, £3.9 million is sought for expenditure on custom-built factory premises. In Vote 2, a net increase of £5.7 million is sought for a range of services, including an additional £1.1 million for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. The last few years have seen a welcome upturn in Northern Ireland's tourism, and we expect that 1991 will show a record figure of over 1,150,000 visitors.
Vote 3, which covers expenditure by the Training and Employment Agency, seeks a further £1.4 million for the youth training programme and £0.1 million for the community volunteering scheme. This will enable the number of full-time posts supported by the scheme to increase from 600 to 700.
The Department of the Environment has supplementary estimates in four Votes. In Vote 1, an additional £4.5 million is sought, including £1.3 million for roads and bridges, £0.5 million for road lighting and £0.7 million for payments to Northern Ireland Railways.
In Vote 2 £5.4 million is sought overall and £12.3 million is for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, mainly to enable it to repay loans. This is offset by additional receipts from housing associations and by a fall in the number of applications under the co-ownership scheme.
In the Department of the Environment's Vote 3 an additional £3.4 million is sought for consultants' fees for design work on water and sewerage capital schemes. Over the next three years, approximately £87 million will be directed towards improving the already high quality of drinking water supplies in Northern Ireland in line with the relevant EC directives.
In Vote 4 an additional £3.3 million is sought. This includes £3.7 million for community economic regeneration schemes. Funds continue to be targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need.
For education a net increase of £10.7 million is sought for Vote 1. Additional provision includes £11.8 million for grants to education and library boards and £8.7 million is for mandatory student awards, reflecting the increasing numbers of school-leavers who enter higher education.
Moving to the Department of Health and Social Services, in Vote 1 an additional £2.5 million is sought
1134
for grants to health and social services boards to meet increased costs. An additional £15 million is required for expenditure on the family health services, arising mainly for payments under the new general practitioner and dental contracts.
Finally, in Vote 4, covering social security, an addition of nearly £15 million is sought to meet a revised estimate of claims for a wide range of benefits, including income support and disability benefits.
I hope that the House has found this very brief summary of the main components of this order helpful. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February be approved.—(Baroness Hooper.)
1 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, to a Northern Ireland debate and regret that I have been unable to provide her with a larger audience. I thank her for explaining so clearly the significance of the order and its main provisions.
Like all Members of your Lordships' House, I welcome the assurance of the Minister that the moratorium announced last December on new capital contracts will come to a close at the end of this financial year. Regrettably, its effect may be worse for a little while to come. That is a point made several weeks ago in your Lordships' House, when the noble Lord, Lord Holme, raised the question of its effect on the housing executive.
The main estimates will come before the House later in the year, and this afternoon I propose to confine my comments and questions to four areas. We heard from the Minister that the first main vote is that of the Department of Agriculture. We will do well to remind ourselves that this industry accounts for 10 per cent. of civil employment in Northern Ireland, and 7.5 per cent. of the total GDP. I have read the annual report of the Department of Agriculture for 1990–91, and my noble friend Lord Gallacher, to whom we on these Benches look for guidance on agricultural matters, confirms that the report reveals good performances over the wide area of agricultural interest covered by it. I am sure that that is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, as a former agricultural Minister in Northern Ireland, will be happy to confirm.
The Minister referred to the agricultural vote and I shall be grateful if she can throw some light on four specific matters. First, as two-thirds of Northern Ireland's agricultural output is exported, why were the grants for co-operation in agriculture and horticulture withdrawn last May? Was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the agricultural Minister consulted about that? If so, were they in full agreement with the proposal?
Secondly, although additional provision is made for the disease eradication programme—that is something to which the noble Baroness specifically referred—will any of the additional funding be allotted to pay for the costs of processing and disposing of fallen animals, which is estimated to cost around £200,000 a week? I have a feeling that the

1135
noble Baroness will not be able to give me a favourable reply to that question. However, the department will know that the issue of the disposal of fallen animals has been a subject of much anxiety, and that anxiety has been particularly expressed by the Local Government Action Group which represents 22 out of the 26 district councils. Moreover, the action group warns that the UK may be in breach of the EC directive on animal waste disposal. The group recommends that there should be an insurance fund set up to meet that risk. I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness can tell the House how the Government respond to the anxieties of the Local Government Action Group.
Thirdly, as agriculture is predominantly grass based in Northern Ireland, and almost 70 per cent. of its gross output comes from beef, sheep and dairying, can the Minister say how the proposals for the EC CAP restructuring are likely to affect that area? I understand that they are considered to be severe in a United Kingdom context. I should like to know how those proposals are likely to affect Northern Ireland. Again, can the Minister confirm whether or not consultation took place with the Northern Ireland Ministers by their British counterparts prior to and following meetings of the agricultural council.
My fourth point on the agricultural Vote concerns whether the Milk Marketing Board, or its counterpart in Northern Ireland, intends to table proposals for converting itself to a voluntary co-operative of producers. I understand that the Milk Marketing Board in England and Wales announced such proposals and that it will convert itself to a voluntary co-operation of producers by Easter. I understand that that is in response to pressures from the EC but with the encouragement of the Ministry. Does the Minister know whether a similar change of legal status is contemplated in Northern Ireland?
I move on to the second main Vote—that of the Department of Economic Development. We approve the additional provisions specifically referred to by the Minister. The Industrial Development Board plays a leading role in the economic regeneration of Northern Ireland. While I am loathe to criticise the board, and while I also appreciate that conditions have been difficult over the past couple of years, one has to ponder over a number of recent findings indicating that the board may not in the past have addressed the underlying causes of Northern Ireland's economic weaknesses.
That criticism came out most strongly several weeks ago in a letter by two members of the Department of Economics at Queen's University and published in the Financial Times. It seems to me that the Government will do well to ponder the letter, particularly as the post of chief executive of the IDB has become vacant. We hope that the opportunity will be taken to find a chief executive with the expertise and vision to measure up to the challenge and provide the vigorous leadership necessary.
Before I leave that main heading of expenditure, I should like to say that we on these Benches have been greatly heartened by the growing evidence that leading businessmen, both in the north and south of Ireland,
1136
now see that there is a close identity of interests between businesses north and south of the Border. We read with great satisfaction the joint report of the CBI and the CII on transport. A week ago the Irish Times carried a report of the powerful address of Dr. George Quigley, the chairman of the Ulster Bank. Dr. Quigley proposed that Ireland, north and south, should become what he described as an,
"'island economy', supported by the EC and with a special budget for economic development to be allocated by agreement between the Irish and British Governments".
He also proposed a Belfast-Dublin "economic corridor"—his words—to increase business and economic development between the two cities. It seems to me that that would also help to achieve the one "island economy", although I am not quite certain that he presented the corridor on that basis.
That is a refreshing approach and surely must be the modern approach. I hope that the Minister can say that the Government are listening carefully and with sympathy to what business people such as Dr. Quigley are saying. I hope also that they are considering in what way the two governments—and clearly it is a matter which concerns the two governments—can help to create the conditions which will enable these new ideas to come to fruition.
A deputation came to Westminster about a month ago to press the case for increased funding for the Northern Ireland community-based workshops. These workshops are providing a training service to young people who are particularly disadvantaged. I accept that the standard of training may be questioned. Nevertheless, like other noble Lords who met the deputation, I listened with great anxiety and sympathy to the message which the deputation brought to Westminster. Yesterday the Association of Community-Based Training Organisations issued a press statement from which I am very pleased to note that the department has come up with some short-term relief, but I believe that the longer term needs of the workshops remain unresolved.
According to the press statement, the Prime Minister is to be asked by the three party leaders in Northern Ireland to review the funding and the long-term role of the community-based workshops and their standard of training. I also note from the statement that the association is setting up a study group to investigate the funding and the possibility of approaching some of the European youth programmes.
This morning I received a letter from the department from which I was very pleased to note that the department has given considerable support to the workshops. Mr. Needham tells me that the youth training programme already attracts support from the European Social Fund to the tune of about 65 per cent. Yet I am glad that this matter is to be placed on the agenda of the meeting with the Prime Minister and that the discussion will lead to a review of the community-based workshops and their place in the youth training programme in Northern Ireland.
We have been reminded by the Select Committee of this House that the EC has a number of programmes to help young people of the ethnic communities within the EC. The problems of disadvantaged young people

1137
in Northern Ireland are just as acute as those of the ethnic communities in Europe. However, I am encouraged to learn that the department may be exploring other opportunities of obtaining assistance from the EC programmes.
We see from the few examples which I have just given that many of the specific problems of Northern Ireland have also to be seen in context of the general development of the European framework and institutions. We see very clearly the need for a strong regional voice within the Community. Perhaps I may venture to ask whether the department is satisfied that it is well equipped to develop the case in Brussels with an eye particularly on the needs of Northern Ireland. That is not to say that Northern Ireland must look to Brussels or to London for all answers to all its problems. That would be to ignore the problems that are well within the power of Northern Ireland, relying on assistance from the UK, to put right.
From these Benches we have given every credit to the Government for having supported the principle of integrated education. But when I read the report of the debate on the order in another place, I became painfully aware that the nursery schools which are feeding the integrated primary schools are in some financial difficulties. If the integrated nursery schools were to fail, it is impossible, in our view, to exaggerate the damage that will be done to the integrated primary schools and the integrated secondary schools further up the line. I hope that if there is a problem here—I should not care to quantify that problem—the department can find the resources that are required to finance the integrated nursery schools, although I accept that this may require particularly careful presentation, given opposition in certain quarters.
I shall touch very briefly on another subject. Within the competence of the Northern Ireland Office is the National Health Service in Northern Ireland. We need to ensure that Northern Ireland has the most efficient, effective and humane health service possible. That is an issue to which we shall have to return on another date.
This is the last appropriation order which we shall discuss before the general election. Therefore we are very pleased to read and to hear that the leaders of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland have expressed their willingness to resume the discussions whatever the outcome of the general election. That is encouraging news.
1.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we on these Benches feel a dissatisfaction (which is not confined to any one quarter of the House) with the way that Northern Ireland business is at present scrutinised at Westminster. I recall the debate in this Chamber on the education reform order for Northern Ireland in 1988. That was an enormous measure. We rushed through it in half of an afternoon. We have before us a piece of business of considerable importance, and in the regrettable and unavoidable absence of my noble
1138
friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham I cannot do justice to it the way I should wish. But we should pause and think a little longer about it.
The noble Baroness did her best with her case. There was perhaps a slight Panglossian element in some parts of it. I may say that as a Liberal Democrat I speak as a representative of the only political party which has to any extent any democratic "plain-speak" for voters of Northern Ireland. We are in partnership with the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, and speak in conjunction with them and with information from them.
At all times unemployment in Northern Ireland has been higher than unemployment in the rest of the United Kingdom. At present it is approximately 4 per cent. higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom; a figure of 14 per cent. over the population as a whole; 25 per cent. in some areas in which there are considerable difficulties. Those are significant figures. Looking at them, I am reminded of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff in the days when he was Home Secretary. After visiting the Province, he recalled the proverb about the devil finding work for idle hands to do. In seeing a link between unemployment and crime, as almost all governments have done in almost all centuries, I am tempted to see that multiplied in Northern Ireland.
We on these Benches feel a quite profound regret about the capital freeze which the noble Baroness mentioned. We are pleased to hear that it is drawing to a close. We hope it is doing so very rapidly, and we hope that it will not need to recur in the near future. We are particularly concerned at the freeze in the use of improvement and repair grants. The construction industry is one in which unemployment is quite peculiarly cyclical. We are also well aware that repairs postponed are repairs whose magnitude increases. If building repairs are put off, a great deal more work is created in the long run and that is not in the public interest.
We are also very anxious about the justification that has been given for the freeze. We have been told that it is because of the cost of terrorist attacks. It is our contention that that cost, unavoidable as it regrettably is, should not be taken out of ordinary budgets. That should be a separate account and should not hold back the carrying on of ordinary business. If it does, it is yielding a vital point. It is interfering with the principle of business as usual.
I should like to ask the Minister one or two specific questions. How much of the £35 million recently made available to increase the Social Fund—a welcome amount, if small—will go to Northern Ireland? With an eye on the long-term development of the Northern Irish economy, are there any plans in progress to have a rail link leading from the Channel Tunnel to one of the ports which serve Northern Ireland? In the long term, for the future of the Northern Irish economy, that question is a vital one. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, about the EC and the future of the Northern Irish economy. We sympathise with the approach, but if it is to be made effective there must be trade routes as fast as we can manage stretching from Northern Ireland through to the

1139
Channel and through on to the Continent of Europe. I very much hope that that will be taken into account. With those words, I shall leave it there for the moment, but the business needs more scrutiny than it is getting here.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest, albeit an indirect one, because my company owns a small amount of property in the area to which I am about to refer.
Under the heading of Department of Economic Development, we wish that the Industrial Development Board could make an extra special effort to attract industry to the area of South Down. I know that it is difficult to attract industry to anywhere in the United Kingdom at this time of economic recession and in Northern Ireland I know that it is easier to attract industry to the periphery of Belfast, to the satellite towns such as Bangor, Newtownards, Lisburn and Carrickfergus. Perhaps there is a false perception about South Down—that it is a rural area and one that is not suitable for any industrial development at all. That is not the case. Sites have already been identified where, without detriment to the countryside or rural environment, industry could be located. We feel that perhaps South Down has been allowed to become something of a backwater and that not enough effort has been made to attract industry to that area.
It was for that reason that I was privileged on Monday to be able to attend the launch of a new completely voluntary enterprise, though with input from the Down District Council. I refer to the Down Economic Development Agency. This is a marvellous example of self-help and of people voluntarily trying to do what they can to improve prosperity in the area. But being realistic, all they can do is promote the area, publicise it, give information and encouragement and try to influence affairs. However, at the end of the day it is the IDB which has the staff and which can go overseas to negotiate. Above all it is the IDB which has the funds to be able to put together an attractive package to provide an incentive for inward investment to be brought to the area. If we wish that the IDB and the Department of Economic Development would work harder in favour of South Down, we sincerely wish that the Department of the Environment would work less hard against South Down.
Downpatrick, the county town, has been strangled for years by traffic congestion. It is getting worse every year. For years the possibility of an urban through pass has been mooted. That would not solve the problem. It might ease it temporarily but experience has shown on many occasions that carving the centre out of a town for the sake of the traffic is counterproductive. Not only does it wreck the personality of the town but it tends to attract more traffic, so it defeats itself in the end. The only answer is to keep through traffic out of the middle of the town.
For this reason a bypass road for Downpatrick was suggested by myself and others more than 20 years ago. More recently, in the past few years it has been under active consideration and we were promised not long ago that a decision was about to be reached. Now we have been told that the ring road has been
1140
postponed indefinitely. When all is said and done, a great deal has been said but nothing has been done. Why does the Department of the Environment spend money on an urban regeneration scheme for Downpatrick when in fact it is causing degeneration, not regeneration, by allowing the town to be strangled by traffic congestion and is providing a disincentive to inward investment to the area?
Under the heading of Department of the Environment, there is shortly to be a reorganisation of the water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland. I understand that a new company is to be formed which will be wholly owned by the Government through the Department of the Environment. Unlike Great Britain, it will be a single company covering the entire Province, which means that there will he no competition. That makes it all the more important that regulation of that company should be as efficient and as powerful as possible. The way things are at the moment I understand that regulatory powers may be vested in the very same department, the Department of the Environment. That is not satisfactory.
We have already seen how the Department of the Environment can grant itself planning permission to build what seems to be a completely inappropriate building beside one of the most historically and architecturally important churches in Belfast; St. Malachi's. If the department can do that kind of thing, if it is self-regulatory, the public will have no confidence. It is very important that there should be maximum consultation before any decisions are made. The public and those who represent the public and the various interests throughout the Province should have every opportunity to make an input during the consultative period before any decisions are made. It would seem that the Northern Ireland Consumer Council would be as good a body as any to act as an agency for this purpose and perhaps to be the regulatory agency at the end of the day.
In what I am afraid is mainly a rather whingeing speech, it gives me great pleasure, as they say, to be able to pay tribute to the Department of Education for its far sighted attitude towards integrated education in Northern Ireland. I was in at the start when in 1981 Lagan College was formed with 28 pupils. Last Autumn I was privileged to go to the 10th birthday party of Lagan College when it had not 28 pupils hut 750 of them. It has been a real success story. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, knows, integrated schools have been established all over the Province since that time. It is a movement that has really got off the ground. Credit must be paid to Her Majesty's Government and to the Department of Education for the way in which they have facilitated that, and in recent years actively encouraged it.
I turn now the Department of Health and Social Services. I read that £37.2 million of extra aid was recently approved for assisting in the running costs of hospices in Great Britain. That means that 50 per cent. of the running costs of hospices in Scotland are met from public funds and that 42 per cent. of those costs in England and Wales are met from public funds. But if what I read is correct, Northern Ireland hospices still receive only 33 per cent. There may be some other

1141
factor involved in the equation about which I am unaware. If the noble Baroness would be kind enough to let me know, I should be most grateful. On the face of it it seems to me to be inequitable; but perhaps I have got it wrong. I honestly think that the Northern Ireland hospices ought to receive the same level of grant aid towards their running costs as do those in England, Scotland and Wales.
Finally, I have something to say under the heading of the Northern Ireland Assembly, although I hesitate to say it. I preface my observation by saying that ever since the introduction of direct rule about 20 years ago, I have found every Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, whether Labour or Conservative, to be unfailingly courteous, sympathetic and as helpful as they could be within the limitations of what they were able to do. I have found everyone of them to be friendly and congenial.
Therefore, it is with some hesitation that I ask whether it is in keeping with the dignity of their office that Northern Ireland Office Ministers should indulge in local party politics? I should say the same if we were to have a Liberal Democrat Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. That is not inconceivable; indeed, after the next election, it may even be the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Moreover, if they were to campaign on behalf of the Alliance Party I would regard it equally as being unseemly. Therefore, is it right? After all, in a colony the governor may have been a prominent politician since retired, but as soon as he enters Government House he leaves his politics behind him. He is above all that. I suggest that the same should apply to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. I do not wish to cause offence, but I feel that it would be more in keeping with the dignity of their office if they were right above politics.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly intervene after the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. I should like first to congratulate my noble friend the Minister for getting her toes wet on an occasion such as this on Northern Ireland affairs. Who knows, after a possible election, she may well find herself—judging by her previous performance in your Lordships' House—handling all the responsibilities to which the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, and other Members of the House referred? Looking into the background of the order before the House today, I must say that it is rare for us to have the opportunity to discuss—certainly in the depth that has been possible today—the affairs of Northern Ireland, let alone to delve into some of the details. I take the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we should use such opportunities to raise all kinds of points.
What has not been mentioned—it may have been touched upon briefly by the noble Earl—is the question of terrorist violence which is, alas, still with us. Today of all days, I should like to pay my personal tribute and express my respect and congratulations to the members of the security forces—namely, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment—and also to the people of Northern Ireland who, once again, after an enormous bomb went off in Lurgan yesterday, have, with good humour, swept up
1142
and carried on business. The one thing that marked my five-and-a-half very happy years serving in the post which my noble friend now holds in Northern Ireland was indeed the immense support I received and which all Ministers in your Lordships' House and in another place receive from everyone in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that your Lordships will find it normal if I raise one or two points on the agricultural sector in the two Votes in the order before the House today. I was ignorant in a certain aspect; indeed, it shows that I had not kept up with the entire details of the Northern Ireland Office. I had one or two questions on drainage. I spoke to the Minister responsible for the Northern Ireland agriculture department. He said that I was a little out of touch, but typically, and in tribute to me, he said, "Why use one word when three would do?" I understand that that division is now known as water course management. Certainly, I recall that water course management occupied much of the time of government output when I served in Northern Ireland.
I wonder whether my noble friend can confirm—not necessarily today, but perhaps after raising the matter with our noble friend and indeed with the Ministers responsible for these activities in another place—something about the Blackwater drainage scheme. That was well under way during my career in Northern Ireland. It was a scheme of such complexity that it even outlasted my career. I believe that the programme should be complete by now. Can my noble friend confirm that all the tidying up and repairs which are associated with the enormous works carried out on that section of drainage in Northern Ireland have been completed? I hope that all the work has been cleaned up and indeed that the professional tidying up and restoration of all the facilities and the sites has been carried out to the very professional standard which the water course management division would seek to aspire to.
Can my noble friend also check that all the wetlands areas, which I recall were endemic, have been restored and are in the kind of order which they should be. I recall that one of the wetlands caused considerable embarrassment in my office as the typewriter misprinted the name of one particular inhabitant who may well have inhabited the area spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath; namely, the area around Downpatrick. I remember that he took me to visit the areas to which he referred. I was informed that in the wetlands, especially the Blackwater area, there was an inhabitant known as the green and white fronted goose. I put down a note saying that I was not aware that this was the "ocine" sector of the Celtic supporters' club but that I wondered whether they could pay a visit to various places in south Belfast which I thought might be particularly good. An official said, "No, no, Minister. There is something called the Greenland white-fronted goose". Apparently, it took its roost in a particular area of the Blackwater.
I hope that my noble friend can confirm that all the assurances that were given in those far off days have been carried out and that the wetlands work in that

1143
area and in the programme has indeed been completed. Perhaps she may also be able to confirm at a later date—or at least verify—that, as regards all the capital grants mentioned in both Schedules 1 and 2 of the Votes to the Department of Agriculture, her honourable and right honourable friends in the Northern Ireland Office will continue to push for the very best treatment for Northern Ireland farmers. I recall that one motto which used to appear regularly was, "Act fast while grants last." That was not exactly the watchword of the department as it was keen on a high take up; but, all the same, I hope that all the grants—for example, for the concreting of floors of fairly simple sheds within the Northern Ireland agricultural sector—are going through.
I hope that my noble friend will insist upon sound support for marketing. That is mentioned in both schedules of the agricultural Vote. As my noble friend will know, there is an enormous food fair which takes place every other year; that is, every even year. This year there is a huge fair in Paris. I hope that my noble friend will insist that either the Secretary of State or a Minister attends that exhibition to push the interests of the Northern Ireland food industry.
Finally, I believe that I heard my noble friend say that the Government were directing their efforts as a priority towards the veterinary service—towards both the chief scientific officer's department and the veterinary research laboratory—in an attempt to continue the great struggle in Northern Ireland to achieve a high rate of animal health and hygiene as well as what my noble friend referred to as "disease eradication". I hope that she will convey my comments and my best wishes to her right honourable and honourable friends in the Northern Ireland Office as well as to all those who are involved in supporting Northern Ireland's primary industry.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, perhaps I may first extend a very warm welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in her first incursion into Northern Ireland affairs. I was not surprised to find her at the Dispatch Box because, of all the Ministers of State in this House, the noble Baroness has proved most versatile in speaking for one ministry after another. Given her Liverpool background, I am sure that she will not feel entirely out of place discussing Northern Ireland.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, alleged that it is almost a ritual for this side of the House to complain about the way in which Northern Ireland business is conducted. Over the years I have found that this House spends more time discussing the affairs of Northern Ireland than the elected House. It is obvious when one reads the Hansard reports of Northern Ireland debates in another place that Members of Parliament are in a great rush to cover as many topics as possible in the short period of an hour and a half that is allowed for the debate. According to one Hansard report, only five Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland constituencies participated. From reading their speeches, it is obvious that they had to apologise for taking so long to make their points. I repeat that they had to rush to make their remarks in an hour and a half.
1144
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, that neither this House nor another place is the best place to discuss an appropriation order for Northern Ireland. We are now discussing an appropriation order for £4,725 million for the present financial year for services in Northern Ireland. I recall the many years that I spent as a Member of Parliament at Stormont and at the Assembly. The old Stormont Parliament had 52 Members of Parliament and the Assembly had 70. Discussion there on an appropriation order of this dimension would have lasted at least one full day, if not two or even three days. In that time, all the relevant constituency problems, which are the everyday concerns of elected representatives, would have been covered in great detail. It has been said in another place that some of the issues raised in Parliament in these debates seem rather parochial to the outsider, who is not be aware of the names or problems of the towns in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, said that he has met with unfailing courtesy from all the Northern Ireland Ministers sent from this House to administer the affairs of Northern Ireland—be they Conservative or Labour. I, too, have found the same—dating right back to the first such Minister, the noble Viscount. Lord Whitelaw, in 1972, to the Ministers of the present day. However, I find it sad that, having gained such vast experience of Northern Ireland by actually living there, all the former Secretaries of State and Ministers of State for Northern Ireland seem to lose interest when they come to this House. At present, five former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland are Members of your Lordships' House. Those people have been involved in the administration of the Province throughout the past 20 troubled years. I had hoped that they would maintain their interest in the Province and be present in the Chamber during our debates to give us the benefit of the knowledge that they have gained during those years. They might have been able to add something to our debates. That is not a criticism of your Lordships' House but of the way in which Northern Ireland business is conducted.
I am sure that I will be in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, when I say that the best place for a discussion of Northern Ireland affairs—be it an appropriation order or anything else—would be in an Assembly at Stormont, in a devolved Parliament on the 1974 model, which was representative of all the communities in Northern Ireland. Whatever talks may be held in the immediate future, I hope that Northern Ireland's politicians will concentrate their minds on trying to bring about devolved government in Northern Ireland so that these issues can be discussed by representatives who have first-hand knowledge of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, referred to the possible privatisation of water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland. I believe that many of your Lordships may have received a circular on this. Perhaps I should add that Northern Ireland is not as short of water and does not have the same problems

1145
with water as some oilier areas, such as Wales. I stress, however, that water is of vital importance to the people of Northern Ireland.
I have absolutely no doubt that if the Government continue to pursue their current thinking on privatization—that is what it amounts to—I shall be standing here in the future talking about the new company that will be set up. Initially, such a company would come under the control of the Department of the Environment, but I have absolutely no doubt that the provision of the service will be privatised within a few years. There is no question about that. There must be maximum consultation before any steps to set up such a company are taken. The views of the General Consumer Council in Northern Ireland—a body that acts with government support—should be sought now before the publication of the White Paper because, once a White Paper is published, it is difficult to change its provisions. We need to have the maximum consultation now on this important development.
The Estimates include a vast sum of money for electricity. Again, that has been allocated with the intention of privatising the electricity undertakings in Northern Ireland and selling off the power stations. However, every elected representative from every constituency in Northern Ireland has expressed opposition to the proposals to sell off Northern Ireland's electricity undertakings to a private enterprise.
Only yesterday, I was amazed to read in The Times of London that, perhaps for the first time, the economics of Northern Ireland may have considerable bearing on the Budget. The article suggested that in seeking to sell off the four electricity power stations in Northern Ireland, the Government hoped to raise billions of pounds with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be enabled to reduce income tax by 1p in the pound. I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland will be very interested to know that the sale of their electricity undertakings might lead to a reduction in income tax. So we have it—the threatened privatisation of water and what might be described as the almost fait accompli privatisation of the electricity industry in Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies referred to the new appointment that is about to be made by the Industrial Development Board. The IDB in Northern Ireland is of such crucial importance to the whole economic outlook of the Province that the person who gets that job should be enthusiastic about it. The job should not be given to someone simply because he has spent so many years in the Civil Service and the post is regarded as simply another step up the ladder, with the view being taken that that person is entitled to it and that, as a result of it, he may be entitled to a knighthood in the future. The man who gets the job must be dedicated to making it a success. Considerable stress should be put on that by the Government when making that appointment. I reinforce everything said about it by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies.
The Minister may not have the answers to the questions I am about to ask, but I was happy to read
1146
in the Estimates that two advanced factories are about to be built in West Belfast. As one who represented that sorely deprived area for many years, that was good news. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some indication of how large those two factories will be; whether there have been offers from people outside the Province who want to invest in them; what type of industry will be carried on in them; and how many people will be involved. The Government and the Opposition will admit that the last time that that type of activity was tried in Northern Ireland under John DeLorean, when a car factory was set up in West Belfast which failed tragically for all sorts of reasons, the one thing that it proved was that there was a skilled workforce there.
That factory was set up on a greenfield site under the aegis of my noble friend Lord Mason. There was no question but that the labour and skills were available. That was one of the great industrial successes I saw during my period as a Member of Parliament for that area. I hope that the Government will do everything that they can to push ahead and expedite the setting up of those two factories, because, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, when idle hands are available they can be exploited.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, was one of the longest serving Ministers in Northern Ireland. I come from an urban background and do not understand agriculture very well, but I can tell him that he was much admired for what he tried to do for the rural communities in Northern Ireland.
Those of us who have spoken do not represent Northern Ireland constituencies. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has said that the Liberal Democrats have a link with the Alliance Party in Northern Ireland. The Labour Party also has a link, because it says that it has a sister party in the SDLP. The Government will say that they have a candidate in North Down. Everyone can claim to have some connection with Northern Ireland. The one who has the greatest connection with Northern Ireland is the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, because he lives there. Unfortunately I do not live there. I do not live over here for any particular reason. My home in Northern Ireland was burnt by terrorists and I had to take up residence in this country. Hardly a day goes by when I am not telephoning or receiving calls in my office from Northern Ireland; so I am well aware of the position that exists there.
As I said, the Estimate of £4.725 billion represents a major sum of money. It should be given maximum consideration by the Government.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have welcomed me to this position for the first time. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that thanks to him the first mention of my presence in your Lordships' House recorded in Hansard was as a result of a debate such as this on Northern Ireland through which I happened to sit, which fact was commented upon by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt.
This is an important subject. The quality of the debate far outweighs the anxieties expressed about the length of time given to scrutiny procedures. That is always true of these debates in your Lordships' House.

1147
I hope to answer the main questions that have been asked, especially those of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who kindly gave me some advance notice of the areas of his interest.
I shall start by responding to my noble friend Lord Lyell who talked about agriculture and the need to ensure that capital grants and the marketing of agricultural products were given sufficient emphasis. He put considerable energy into that during his term of office in the Northern Ireland Office. I feel sure that my honourable friend who now stands in his boots —perhaps I should say wellies—will be displaying similar energy.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about agricultural and horticultural co-operation. I can confirm that Northern Ireland Ministers were consulted before any decision was taken to withdraw those grants in 1991. The Government believe that the producers themselves should take decisions on collaborative marketing, in accordance with commercial considerations. The benefits of such marketing are clear, and the food industry should not need grant aid as an inducement to do what is in fact plain commercial good sense.
On the issue of' the reform of the CAP, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is of course one of the four United Kingdom Ministers with responsibility for Agriculture. He is closely involved in the development of the UK response to the CAP reform proposals. The Government's aim is to promote proposals which will benefit agriculture throughout the whole of these islands, including of course Northern Ireland.
It was said that the Local Government Action Group has expressed anxiety about animal waste disposal and the European Community directive. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has negotiated an arrangement with a rendering plant in the Province for a collection, rendering and disposal service for fallen animals at a cost to the farmer. Alternatively, fallen animals can be disposed of adequately and safely on the farm by burial, provided that that is done in accordance with the advice provided by the department.
There are serious difficulties associated with the Local Government Action Group's proposals for an insurance fund, a subject mentioned by the noble Lord. New primary legislation would be required to effect it. The proposals involve the imposition of a levy. That could not be applied to the large numbers of livestock which are exported live each year from Northern Ireland and would therefore impact unfairly on other farmers. A levy would have to be subject to European Community approval. I believe that the noble Lord understands that fully. I also understand that the Ulster Farmers' Union has rejected proposals for a levy and an insurance fund.
On the subject of the Milk Marketing Board, and whether the Northern Ireland Board intends to follow the boards in England and Wales in moving towards a voluntary co-operative system, it is generally recognised that the present arrangements need to change if the dairy industry is to meet the challenges and opportunities of the single market. On 6th
1148
December 1991, the Northern Ireland MMB announced its intention to move to voluntary co-operative status. All the boards in the United Kingdom are currently preparing proposals which will be forwarded to Brussels as soon as possible. All interested parties will of course be given an opportunity to comment before final decisions are taken.
I shall move away from agriculture to the IDB and its performance, especially that relating to attracting inward investment, a subject mentioned by a number of your Lordships. It has to be said that this is a long-term process, and it would clearly be wrong to judge performance on a one-year snapshot.
Over the past three years, the IDB has provided over 5,000 jobs from inward investment, and to the most recent figures should be added around 300 new jobs arising from the recent Royal Mail decision to set up its returned letter centre in Belfast. I understand that the IDB is currently negotiating with several foreign companies. This could lead to a further significant number of jobs in the near future. Obviously we all wish that the figures were higher. We must recognise the impact of the current worldwide recession and the special difficulties that the IDB faces because of the adverse effect of Northern Ireland's image abroad. However, I believe that the board deserves credit for the progress it continues to make. I should add that the post of chief executive has been advertised and it is expected that an appointment will be made within the next few months. In the meantime, I shall ensure that the comments made today by your Lordships will be drawn to the attention of my right honourable and honourable friends. This is a significant and important post.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about recent comments by the chairman of the Ulster Bank on the subject of a one-island economy in Ireland. The Government also welcome the fact that businessmen north and south are thinking about the opportunities offered by the single market. We are listening and considering carefully what they have to say.
Dr. Quigley's ideas are an interesting contribution to the debate. The advantages of close co-operation are widely recognised and the Government are already working to develop this in areas which are economically beneficial to Northern Ireland such as tourist promotion, transport and energy links. No doubt it could also include the issue of the rail link from the Channel Tunnel raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I know that in my days as a Member of the European Parliament for Liverpool much thought and effort were given to the issue on this side of the Irish Sea.
Also in the context of the Industrial Development Board, the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, drew our attention to the needs of South Down. Like him, I welcome the launch of the Down Economic Development Agency as evidence of the important aspect of self-help. I trust that it will succeed in co-operating successfully with the IDB, whose role is to present a more national image.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to the recent deputation from Northern Ireland on the

1149
position of community-based workshops. In many cases we fully recognise that they carry out valuable work within the Northern Ireland youth training programme by providing training services to young people, especially those in disadvantaged areas. They are relatively well funded compared with the rates which apply in Great Britain, but we need to ensure that they offer a consistently high quality of training. To that end, a system of funding has been introduced which requires workshops, as well as other trainers, to raise their standards and improve their cost-effectiveness. The funding of workshops will continue so long as those standards are met. The Government are also exploring the opportunities for further EC funding for certain training programmes and will bring them to the attention of the community workshops.
On the question of provision of integrated nursery schools —another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies —the Government's commitment to integrated schools is well known and has been commented on by others in the debate. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the support which your Lordships' House has given to these developments. There are now 16 such integrated schools, with a total of 3,000 pupils, so it is clearly moving very much in the right direction. I understand that about 45 per cent. of three and four year-olds in Northern Ireland are in nursery or primary education, which is broadly in line with the position in local authorities in Great Britain.
The Government recognise the case for more nursery schools, not only in the integrated sector but more generally. However, these have to be considered against other demands on education resources.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, specifically asked me about the £35 million for the Social Fund. I can tell him that this is a commitment for Great Britain. Northern Ireland has a separate Social Fund budget and its size for 1992–93 has still to be determined. We expect the budget to show a significant increase over 1991–92.
The noble Earl also expressed concern about the possible effects of the capital moratorium, and this was touched on by other noble Lords. A number of extra demands arose this year in the Northern Ireland block, including significant pressures in relation to education and training and the family health service provision, as I said in my opening remarks. Those were not just extra costs arising from terrorist violence. It was therefore necessary to impose a short delay on the release of certain expenditure, but the Government have always made clear that the moratorium would not extend beyond the end of the financial year. My honourable friend the Secretary of State recently confirmed this and indicated that the moratorium is being brought to an end. Any projects delayed will be reconsidered in the year 1992–93 and in most cases will be slotted into the programme fairly quickly.
Perhaps I may stress that there has been no reduction in the overall level of public expenditure in the Province. The adjustments required amount to less than 0.5 per cent. of the total block, which currently
1150
stands at £6.5 billion. Nor has there been any direct or lasting effect on the quality of services provided to the people of Northern Ireland. Within the substantial resources available to the Province, perhaps I may also assure the noble Earl that the Government give high priority to measures to strengthen the economy and reduce the levels of unemployment which he mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, asked a specific question about hospices. In Northern Ireland we have already met the Government's commitment to fund agreed services at around 50 per cent. The recent announcement of an additional £37 million being made available in England is intended to bring the English end nearer to the 50 per cent. target which already pertains in Northern Ireland. While we keep the position under review, the Government have no immediate plans to provide a further injection of additional funds.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, also referred to the new water company and its regulation. I understand these regulatory functions will be the subject of an Order in Council which will come before your Lordships in due course. Your Lordships will therefore be able to examine the regulatory framework in that context and ensure that it is sufficiently robust. The noble Lord, and others, raised a number of interesting matters including industrial development, the traffic problems in Downpatrick and environmental services. I know he has a deep interest in those matters. I can give an assurance that my noble friend Lord Belstead will study the record of the contributions made today and will write not only to the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, but also to any other noble Lord whom I have failed to respond to.
Before I offend my noble friend Lord Lyell on this point, he asked a specific question about the Blackwater drainage scheme. I understand that the final contract of the scheme was completed in the autumn of last year. The department is still in negotiation with some landowners as regards compensatory works. Measures to compensate for the loss of river habitats and to provide environmentally positive features are also being undertaken.
I conclude by saying that it has been of considerable interest to me to be able to participate in this debate and to concentrate on many issues which are familiar to me in the GB context and to compare them with things that are happening in the Province. I understand the feelings that have been expressed about the importance of all these issues. I can assure noble Lords that my right honourable and honourable friends also understand those feelings. They are carrying out their duties and that is also the reason why my noble friend Lord Belstead has been unable to be present at the Dispatch Box as he would have wished.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Registration (Land and Deeds) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992
2.11 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th February be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the main aim of the order is to simplify the procedure for the registration of the ownership of land by the Land Registry of Northern Ireland. The opportunity has also been taken to amend and streamline the procedure for registration of certain documents in the Registry of Deeds.
The two registrars are branches of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and perform different functions. The Registry of Deeds notes the existence of deeds and other documents affecting land so that persons making a search in the registry can ascertain what documents affect a particular plot of land. The Land Registry interprets the effect of the documents, sets out on an official register concise details of the ownership and burdens affecting each registered holding and maintains maps showing the extent and situation of each holding.
As a result of concern about the delay and expense involved in registration of title, the department in 1989 put forward the Land Registry as a candidate for scrutiny by the Efficiency Unit. The scrutiny team's report which followed resulted in an action plan, the implementation of which commenced early in 1990. There has been a significant improvement in the Land Registry's performance since early 1990 but more remains to be done. This draft Order in Council has been prepared as a direct result of the proposals contained in the plan.
Part II—the main part of the draft order—contains provisions which will enable the Land Registry to become still more efficient. For example, Article 6 abolishes the different classes of register in the Land Registry in favour of a single "title register".
Article 14 in particular facilitates increased reliance by the Land Registry on solicitors' certificates. That will reduce significantly the amount of checking of dealings which has to be undertaken by Land Registry staff. Article 29 extends the power of the Registrar of Titles to rectify mistakes in the register or registry map. Article 30 provides for the winding up of the Land Registry Insurance Fund with compensation claims for registration errors being met by the department out of moneys provided by Parliament.
Articles 31 and 32 provide for the determination by the Lands Tribunal of disputes about compensation arising out of registration errors and revise the circumstances in which the department may seek recovery from certain persons of compensation that is paid out as a result of such errors. Article 36 and other provisions enable maps, registers and indices to be kept in a computerised form and generally help to simplify the procedures and reduce the amount of checking and therefore the expense involved in registration of title generally.
Generally, the land registration amendments and the resultant simplification and speeding up of the
1152
registration process will enable more work to he undertaken by the existing staff and pave the way for the introduction of a programme of extension of compulsory registration of title, on an area by area basis, to all land in Northern Ireland.
When the Land Registry was set up in Ireland, its main task was to register farmland which had been bought out compulsorily by tenants from their landlords under the land purchase acts. Accordingly, the title to most farmland in Northern Ireland is registered but the bulk of the buildings in urban locations is not. It is estimated that the title to about one half of the total number of properties in Northern Ireland is registered in the Land Registry while the other half remains subject to the registration of deeds system. We feel that it is undesirable that such a high proportion remains subject to that registration of deed system since it is a more time-consuming system.
Since the purpose of the order is to simplify the registration of title system so that registration can be completed more quickly and at a reduced cost, the full advantages of the land registry system should be more widely appreciated. Nevertheless, the introduction of a programme of compulsory registration of title will not have the immediate result of making the Registry of Deeds obsolete. Part III of the order therefore introduces amendments to the Registration of Deeds (Northern Ireland) Act 1970. Those changes include provisions which, for example, would facilitate computerisation of the records and indices maintained in the Registry of Deeds and permit regulations to be made providing for the registration of documents which are lodged by post.
The remaining provisions of the draft order are of comparatively minor significance and generally technical and include consequential amendments.
The proposal for the draft order has been circulated for comment to a wide variety of interested parties, including district councils, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Law Society of Northern Ireland and other relevant representative bodies. Comments received have been taken into account in drafting the order which is now before your Lordships. I believe that what we suggest is both sensible and necessary. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th February be approved.—(Baroness Hooper.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the order and for pointing out the principal advantages to the conveyancing practitioner and the consumer of legal services in Northern Ireland.
In the course of preparing my notes for this discussion, I too learnt that the system of registration of title was first introduced in Northern Ireland a century ago as part of the policy of agrarian reform which has influenced so many other aspects of Northern Ireland life. That explains why until recently the system of registration of title was confined to the rural areas. A high percentage—the noble Baroness said about half— of the total population did not have access to the registration of title system with its declared objects of simple, cheap and speedy

1153
conveyancing. The noble Baroness explained that the order will give the population at large access to the new registration of title system before very long.
Another declared object of registration of title is to give finality and certainty to a title so that it is good against the world. Mindful of that objective, I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the wording of the first two lines of Article 14, as I understand that there may he grounds for speculation as to the meaning. However, I should be very surprised if the wording means that the registrar does not have to be satisfied before he approves the title. No doubt the Minister will confirm that.
There is a small point which worries some practitioners. Will the Minister confirm that a copy of the filed plan will be bound up with a certificate of title or the charge certificate as is the practice in England and Wales? Some practitioners believe that they may have to rely too often on verbal description alone, though I believe that Article 28(2) is reassuring on that point.
The Minister explained that the insurance fund backed by the consolidation fund is to be wound up and henceforth compensation will be borne on the department's vote. That is fine and we understand it. Nevertheless, there is some concern among practitioners that the criteria for determining compensation are being changed in a way that may adversely affect the practitioner. For the record it would be helpful if the Minister could give further guidance about the way in which Article 31 will operate. I should be interested to learn why it is left to the Lands Tribunal to determine the question of indemnity and the amount. What will be the position if the question of indemnity turns on an important principle of law? Has any guidance been issued as to practice and procedure before the Lands Tribunal? Another small point but one which is very important for the practitioner is whether compensation includes the recovery of costs.
The Minister has been helpful. She explained the relationship between the two registers. Am I correct in assuming that the deeds register will eventually disappear with the extension of compulsory registration of title throughout Northern Ireland? I also assume—I believe that the Minister confirmed this —that the registration will be extended piecemeal area by area under Article 11 procedure. Currently the extension is by an Order in Council, which is subject to affirmative resolution and takes effect six months thereafter. Under the new procedure the order will be subject to negative resolution and will take effect three months thereafter. Again, I must place on record that practitioners in Northern Ireland fear that three months will not give them sufficient time to prepare for the change.
For my part, although I have no evidence from Northern Ireland to show concern there, I regret that the negative resolution has been substituted for the affirmative resolution. Like many Members of your Lordships' House, I have been persuaded by the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon
1154
of Glaisdale, and the Select Committee on delegated legislation that the House should not be in a hurry to endorse the substitution.
Article 11 is immovable. I should like to ask the Minister where the Land Registry or the Registry of Deeds will be located in future. Under the 1970 Act the Land Registry consists of a central office in Belfast and local offices, but that statutory provision will cease to have effect henceforth. Does that mean that the Land Registry will be centralised? It is interesting on the other hand that under the Deeds Act, the Registry of Deeds is to be situated in Belfast; but that provision also ceases to have effect. Does that mean that the Deeds Registry will follow the Land Registry? Perhaps the Minister can give some assistance on that point.
I come to my last point. I note that some practitioners in Northern Ireland have expressed concern that their lien for unpaid costs cannot be registered. I have a sense of solidarity with lawyers in Northern Ireland. It is a point that I ought to bring to the Minister's attention. Nevertheless, I believe that their fears may be unfounded and that their interest can be protected by a mere notice or caution. Does the Minister agree?
We support the order. It will assist by giving the consumer speedy access to an effective legal service.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome of the beneficial effects of the order. I shall endeavour to respond to some of the points that he raised. If I fail to reply to them all at this stage, both I and my noble friend Lord Belstead will scrutinise the issues and write to him.
The noble Lord referred to the somewhat puzzling first two lines of Article 14. I am inclined to agree with him. However, there is an explanation in paragraph 14 of the explanatory memorandum which gives guidance on the order. If a person has suffered as a result of an incorrect registration—and he has not caused or substantially contributed to the loss or been fraudulent—he will have a right to claim compensation from the department. In turn, the department may bring a claim to recover compensation from the person who caused or substantially contributed to the error provided that he has been either negligent or fraudulent.
The draft order permits the Lands Tribunal to hear both claims at the same time where that is appropriate. Presumably it would also be open to a person to whom a solicitor owes a common law duty of care to sue the solicitor for negligence. But I believe it more likely that a claim will be brought by such a person against the department. Of course the usual professional misconduct procedures can be carried out by the Law Society of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord referred to Article 28. He raised the issue of large holdings of land. It is possible that an area might be omitted. But there is no reason to suppose that the registrar will ignore good conveyancing practice. The purpose of the amendment in so far as it relates to areas is to give greater flexibility in describing plots of land. That relates also to the point made by the noble Lord about file plans being attached to every land certificate. I understand that

1155
that is a matter for Land Registry rules which could be made under Section 79 of the 1970 Act or for administrative action rather than primary registration. From the practical point of view, official copies of the land registry map relating to a registered holding can be obtained from the Land Registry, and the owner and legal practitioners should, where possible, keep them with the associated relevant land certificates.
With regard to Articles 31 and 32, whether or not increased acceptance of solicitors' certificates will lead to an increase in premiums depends on members of the profession doing their job properly. It is not the proper role of the Land Registry to operate a quality control system for members of the legal profession. A solicitor, or indeed anyone else, would be liable to reimburse the department only if he had been guilty of fraud or lack of proper care, or to the extent of any advantage that he might have gained. That is entirely fair and appropriate. The Lands Tribunal president is a county court judge. There is a prescribed procedure which will cope once the time comes and if it is seen to be fit and necessary.
A lien on a land certificate arises under Article 25. Unlike a deposit of land certificate it confers no rights in relation to the land as opposed to the land certificate itself. Since LR deals with the registration of title to land, it is not appropriate to permit the registration of a mere personal right relating to the custody of a land certificate.
This is a fairly complex area and I am not sure that I have picked up all the questions that were raised by the noble Lord. If I have not done so I shall take the opportunity to write to him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1992
2.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will recall debating last December four sets of regulations setting out the detailed provisions for disability living allowance and disability working allowance. The regulations before the House today make a number of minor, purely technical corrections to the disability living allowance regulations which were debated then.
I apologise to the House for bringing forward amendments to the regulations which are of a purely technical nature. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that on the ground the introduction of the new benefit is going extremely well. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining the regulations, which
1156
are entirely technical. Before the debate commenced I told the noble Lord that I wished to ask about the position of the members of the disability appeal tribunals with an experience of or interest in disability. People in receipt of benefits are serving on such tribunals. It appears that if they do so, they are at risk of losing their benefits or may be taken as capable of work. I shall not go into detail because I have mentioned the matter to the Minister. However, I know that RADAR is most anxious about the matter.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we welcome the regulations. We agree that they are minor and technical; but we are not certain that all the changes concerned are minor in their ultimate significance. The references to the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 arise from the fact that the original regulations forgot about Scotland. I am not sure that we are entitled to describe that as a minor defect. It should have been noticed. But I say that knowing that I live in a glass house because we should have noticed it too. Again, I wonder whether Westminster is the best place to consider Scottish legislation. There are other aspects of the original regulations Nos. 9 and 10 which could have been clarified. I shall not pursue them now.
I wish to raise the anxieties of the disabled, many of whom are interested in serving as panel members for appeal tribunals. It is possible that their expenses may be classified as income and make them ineligible for benefit. That would defeat the intention which we all have. Provisions exist for local authority councillors which would be satisfactory here. We hope that they can be so applied.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I repeat the apology I gave for these minor technical amendments. I also make an apology for forgetting about Scotland. I do not believe that this is the time or the place to enter into a debate on the Union other than to reaffirm that my party is committed to the Union of the two countries.
On the substantive point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble kinsman about the effect of service on disability appeal tribunals on the benefits of the disabled, we are fully committed to ensuring that disabled people play an active role in the assessment and adjudication process of DLA and the attendance allowance. That includes ensuring that, wherever possible, a member of the DAT is a disabled person.
I very much take the point made by the noble Lord and my noble kinsman. I assure them, first, that we are aware of the issues facing disabled people receiving various incapacity benefits who wish to serve on the tribunals; and, secondly, that we are actively considering—and I stress actively considering—what can be done in that area. At present I can go no further than that. However, I hope that we shall shortly be able to move forward in a way which will have the approval of the noble Lord and my noble kinsman.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 4) Regulations 1992
2.37 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the regulations deal with the special contributions for share fishermen.
As I am sure all noble Lords will know, they are normally regarded as self-employed for national insurance purposes, but in recognition of the hazardous and sporadic nature of their employment, share fishermen are able to receive unemployment benefit and industrial injuries benefits, unlike other self-employed people.
For share fishermen the normal self-employed national insurance contribution of £5.35 a week is enhanced on advice from the Government Actuary's Department according to the general cost of providing unemployment benefit.
The effect of the draft regulations is that the maximum cost to a share fisherman in 1991–93 for his unemployment benefit cover will be 52 times the weekly addition of £1.65, that is £85.80. The weekly rate of unemployment benefit will be £43.10. The share fisherman who receives unemployment benefit will therefore be able to recoup his extra contributions in less than two weeks. The chances are that he will receive more in benefit than he pays in extra contributions, particularly when some 13,000 share fishermen made an average of over 2,500 claims for unemployment benefit in 1991.
Given what I have said, I am confident that the House will see the need for this adjustment and recognise that, despite the increase in the rate, the share fishermen's contribution still remains a valuable feature of the scheme. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the regulations and for explaining them so lucidly. They are increases which are quite significantly above the rate of inflation. The Minister explained that the contributions were enhanced according to the general cost of unemployment benefit. Is my noble kinsman telling me that the share fishermen are paying for rising unemployment nationally or in their own industry, or in what particular context? I am not sure that that is an altogether satisfactory arrangement. It makes it in order to ask what share fishermen will receive in return for those contributions.
Unemployment benefit is related to a period of unemployment. The period is normally defined by weeks. Share fishermen have a tie-up period—eight days during which they do not fish. It very often happens that that tie-up period is divided between two weeks so that they receive unemployment benefit for neither of those weeks. That is a matter of anxiety to
1158
my honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood and a great many people in Scotland. I hope the Minister can tell us that some change is in prospect.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I too shall be grateful if my noble friend can tell us when the contribution was last increased and whether the increase proposed under the order is not substantially more than can be attributed to any change in the index of retail prices. As I understood what he said, it did not relate to changes in the value of money or changes in the value of the payment, but related to the costs of unemployment benefit.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked how that was assessed; whether it is based on the number of people unemployed and whether the contribution is being increased because there are more unemployed. What is the justification for what appears to be a substantial increase in the contribution? My mathematics are never very good but I shall be grateful if my noble friend will tell us what is the percentage increase in raising the figure from £6.20 to £7.
Lord Carter: My Lords, my questions have already been asked by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I therefore await the Minister's answers with interest.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that the increases are above inflation. As I said when moving the amendments, we increased the special extra amount for share fishermen in line with estimates produced by the Government Actuary as to what he expects the costs of unemployment benefit to be in the coming year. That is not the cost of unemployment benefit paid purely to share fishermen; it is the cost nationally. Because share fishermen are more likely to have more than two weeks on unemployment benefit in a year, they are receiving a good deal. That is unlike all other self-employed people, who are not entitled to any unemployment benefit and simply pay the flat rate of Class 2 contributions. On this occasion the special scheme for share fishermen is increased in line with the Government Actuary's estimate. It has nothing to do with the level of RPI or whatever.
Turning to the question of the new tie-up rules, as mentioned by my noble kinsman, we have entered a period of different European tie-up rules. Rather than the eight-day tie-up of each calendar month, fishing vessels caught by the rules must remain in port for a total of 135 days in the 11-month period from 1st February to 31st December 1992. Whatever else may be said about that rule, I am sure that the greater flexibility which it allows will be widely welcomed by the industry.
Fears have been expressed that the eight-day tie-up rule will force fishermen to go out during periods of bad weather. It has also been felt that the value of community and family life, in areas where Sunday is traditionally observed, may be undermined as fishermen may feel constrained to use the remaining 22 or 23 days of each month to the full extent. Such fears should not arise under the new rule.
At this stage there is no reason to think that the change in the tie-up rules will necessarily affect the

1159
number of unemployment benefit claims from share fishermen. Nor is there any reason to assume that there will be any change in the proportion of claims which are disallowed. It remains the case that share fishermen can claim income support or family credit, depending on their average hours of work. A share fisherman who averages 16 or more hours of work a week from 7th April and has responsibility for one or more children may be entitled to family credit. On the other hand, if his average hours of work are less than 16 a week, he may be entitled to income support.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he say whether there is any other national insurance contribution which is based on a calculation of the cost of the specific benefit to the specific class of person? Can he also answer my question, which he obviously did not take on board, regarding what is the percentage increase and when was the last increase?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend will understand that the national insurance scheme is entirely self-contained. Therefore, when my right honourable friend considers increases in contribution rates he must consider how much will go out every year. That, I accept, is somewhat different from the rest of the national insurance scheme, in that my right honourable friend has to look specifically at the cost of unemployment benefit as a whole and then increase the Class 2 contributions that share fishermen pay.
Share fishermen are in a special position, in that they are entitled to unemployment benefit despite the fact that they are self-employed. My noble friend also asked in what previous years the rate was increased. I understand that it was increased in 1987–88 and in 1988–89.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, what about the percentage?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend the precise percentage at the moment. If he would like me to write to him about the percentage increase, I shall. However, I would say again that we
1160
reckon that share fishermen are receiving a good deal. They are paying an extra £80 or so a year and need only two weeks of unemployment benefit to recoup their extra costs.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not see what is the difficulty in giving the percentage. What is 80p as a percentage of £6.20?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend asks what is the difficulty. I do not happen to have a pocket calculator on me and I cannot give him the precise figure.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I believe it is 12½ per cent.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend has a great staff of officials in the Box, at least some of whom must be competent in elementary mathematics.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am advised that the figure is 13 per cent.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps my noble kinsman will send me a copy of any letter that he sends to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I too am concerned about the basis of the calculation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is not necessary for me to write to my noble friend since I have answered his specific point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Price's Patent Candle Company Limited Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Ulster Bank Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before three o'clock.