Sitting of 26 July 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Father of the House
Mr. Speaker: On this day 40 years ago, the Father of the House—the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan)—came here for the first time. I am sure that the whole House would wish to congratulate him and to wish him well in the years to come.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Falklands War (Peace Proposals)
9.35 am
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in business questions after I had left the Chamber, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) raised a point of order, which is reported in column 1313 of the Official Report, relating in part to a question that I had asked the Prime Minister, in column 1303.
May I take the opportunity of tendering to the right hon. Gentleman my apologies for any embarrassment that my question may have caused him? I apologise also if he feels that paragraphs 5.14 to 5.27 of the minority report in my name are less complete and explicit than they could have been.
The evidence submitted by the Foreign Office, which is published on page 133 of that report, shows the great efforts that the right hon. Gentleman was making during that period. I was only too well aware of these, as I was present in the House at 11 am on Friday 7 May 1982 when he reported to the House on the results of those strenuous efforts in Washington and New York.

Electrical Substations
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wakeham]
9.36 am
Mr. Frank Haynes: Mr. Speaker has commented on what happened 40 years ago today. I am privileged to be a Member of the House with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan). When he entered the House 40 years ago with the return of a Labour Government, there was massive work to be done. The troops came home and realised the mess that the nation was in. There were many problems to be sorted out.
My right hon. Friend is with us today. I pay tribute to the marvellous work that the Labour Government did during that difficult period. I do not doubt that my right hon. Friend will remember that day this morning. After checking wherever one can check these matters, I think that I am correct in saying that he is the only Prime Minister who has become Father of the House. He has been a true and faithful servant to all his constituents, the nation and the world.
Behind every great man there is usually a great woman. I refer to Audrey, my right hon. Friend's wife, who has done sterling work in the community. Without her, I do not think that my right hon. Friend could have achieved what he has.
I now sound a serious note. My constituency of Ashfield in Nottinghamshire contains a place called Selston. That is not a village or a town—it is something in between. Many people live in that fairly large area. On the evening of Saturday 13 July 1985, three youngsters—two 11-year-olds and a nine-year-old—climbed into an electrical substation on the housing estate. Apparently, youngsters do that fairly regularly. The children find cigarettes and matches and they go into the substation to pick off bits of the compound that is used for sealing the units. If the compound is running down the transformers, it means that there is a leakage of some sort, because the compound is on the inside and the units are sealed.
The units carry about 11,000 volts. I understand that for some years youngsters have put their hands into the transformers to get "tickled", as they call it. On 13 July, two 11-year-old boys went into the substation. One of them put his hand in and there was an explosion. That boy died the next day, suffering 85 per cent. burns over the whole of his body. The other boy, who went to the Nottingham city hospital burns unit, suffered 55 to 60 per cent. burns and died the following Wednesday in that unit. It was a terrible tragedy and I feel it my duty to bring it to the attention of the House.
There are, of course, regulations and there is an inspectorate. The authority is the East Midlands electricity board. I understand that the substations are examined fairly regularly, but when incidents of this sort happen it is obvious that something is gravely wrong.
There are 645 similar transformers in the county of Nottingham and nationwide there are over 11,000. Not long ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your own county of Sussex, a lad was killed doing the same thing, and the electricity board at that time promised to take action so that it could not happen again. But nothing has been done, the regulations have not been tightened up, and there have been two fatalities in my constituency.

1417
It is disturbing to find that there is very easy access to many electrical substations. The electricity boards are making large profits and should be able to earmark funds for the purpose of safeguarding substations.
The wall around the substation where the tragedy occurred is 6ft high. There is no top on it. There are two doors at the front. The danger notice is on the front of the door. Around the outer perimeter of the 6ft wall is a small fence made with chicken wire. The youngsters were able to stand on the fence, climb over the wall and gain entry to the substation.
The Evening Post took photographs of one area in the city of Nottingham, Clifton, in which there are several substations. The photographs show clearly what is wrong with them. One of the substations is totally encased and there is no possible access to it unless the doors are open, but there is easy access to the others. As can be seen from the photographs, one is insecure—children can crawl under the fence. Another has a huge hole in the fence. In another there is graffiti on the substation walls, showing that someone has been in there.
The district manager of the East Midlands electricity board at Ilkeston, who is responsible for the area, says that the transformer and switchgear are contained in steel and are completely safe, but there is a pitch running down them, clearly showing that something is wrong. The board suggests that that is because people have tampered with the equipment. It is clear that the substations are not vandal-proof, and I should have thought that in 1985 it would be possible, with proper research, to make substations safe.
I understand that the district manager has also said that there are no laws with regard to fencing. Surely it is time that the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Department of Energy looked seriously at the situation.
I discussed the problem last night with my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). They assure me that they have similar problems with substations in their constituencies. If the problem exists in places as far apart as Nottinghamshire in the Midlands, Jarrow in the north-east, and Ogmore in south Wales, the Department and the CEGB have a considerable task to put the matter right.
In rural areas the substations are not cordoned off. We know what kids will do; we have all been kids ourselves. They get up to all sorts of things, but when I was young tragedies of this sort did not happen. I met the parents of the boys and they were in a terrible state of grief. Last Sunday afternoon, on the estate where they live, the field was packed and the parents made it clear to me that they wished me to go down to the House of Commons and do something about the problem. They are asking for all substations to be made safe, no matter what the cost. We cannot put a price on life and we all know that the money is available to overcome the problem.
We also want to know what the powers that be will do about the problem. I hope that the Minister can give me, the House, parents on that estate and parents nationwide an assurance that they will do something with a view to overcoming tragedies such as the one that we had on 13 July in Selston, Nottinghamshire. We want something done so that such a tragedy never happens again.
I remember, as I am sure does my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, a chap during the
1418
second world war. His name was General MacArthur. He often issued orders. He said, " I want action on this day." That is what I and my constituents are looking for.
I found that the city of Nottingham spends £10,000 a month maintaining and repairing the substations. Multiplied by 12, that amounts to £120,000 a year. The city council says that it spends that money just to stand still and that no progress is made because no sooner has it done the repairs than the position is back to where it was. That is throwing money away.
The Government say that money should he spent wisely. I agree with that. I hope that I spend the money in my pocket wisely. We want the electricity authority and the Department of Energy to spend their money wisely.
Mr. Don Dixon: It is our money.
Mr. Haynes: I accept what my hon. Friend says. It is our money. It is the taxpayers' money, and it should be spent wisely in their interests. Something must be done about the problem. I hope that the Minister will satisfy me this morning that something will be done.
The authorities say that, because of vandalism, they are running to stand still. That is not good enough when so much public money is being spent. I agree that a fair amount of cash is needed, but the problem must be overcome. That is why I applied to Mr. Speaker for this debate. I hope that what I have said has been listened to. I hope that the nation notes the fact that the Department of Energy is full of money. It has all the North sea oil revenues and it receives a great deal of money from the electricity consumer. The Department of Energy and the CEGB have a responsibility. I hope that those departments will respond to this morning's serious appeal so that we never again have such a tragedy anywhere in the United Kingdom.
9.53 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alaistair Goodlad): I associate myself with what has been said by Mr. Speaker and by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) about the Father of the House. I am delighted that our debate this morning should be attended by that great House of Commons man.
This debate is about a subject of great seriousness. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having raised the matter. First, I must express my deepest sympathy with the parents and families of the victims of this tragic occurrence to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
On the early evening of Saturday 13 July two 11-year-old boys were in a substation at Selston. They were close to some of the equipment in that substation when there was an explosion which killed one boy outright and so severely injured the other that he died in hospital a few days later. The substation, which is in a housing estate, is what is known as a distribution substation where electricity at 11,000 volts is stepped down to low voltage for distribution to consumers. The main components were a transformer, a low voltage pillar and three interconnected 11,000 volts switches, and it was on the latter apparatus that the explosion occurred.
I shall answer as best I can what has been said by the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he will appreciate that investigations into the cause of the accident are continuing and that I should not wish to say anything that might be taken as being prejudicial to the coroner's inquest or to any other legal proceedings that might follow.

1419
As the hon. Member will be aware, a preliminary inquest on the matter of identification was held on Thursday 18 July. There will, of course, be a full inquest later and the date of that is a matter for the coroner. The safety regulations applicable to such electricity substations are laid down in the Electricity Supply Regulations 1937, made under the Electricity (Supply) Acts 1882 to 1936. Regulation 9(a) provides that, where energy at high voltage is transformed, converted, regulated or otherwise controlled in substations or switch stations, including outdoor substations, such outdoor substations and outdoor switch stations shall (unless the apparatus is completely enclosed in a metal casing connected with earth, the apparatus also being connected with the system by armoured electric lines) be efficiently protected by fencing not less than eight feet in height or other means so as to prevent access to the electric lines and apparatus therein by any unauthorised person.
The apparatus in the Selston substation was what is known as metal-clad—that is, all the live electrical parts are enclosed within substantial metal covers and insulated to a very high standard. Although there was therefore no statutory requirement for it, the Selston high voltage equipment was in fact enclosed within a substantial brick wall, 6 ft. high, which was fitted with substantial and padlocked wooden doors. The area containing the substation was itself bounded by a fence about 4 ft. high. also with padlocked gates. A notice was fitted on the substation main gates warning of danger and giving details of how the electricity board staff could be contacted. The substation appears to have met in all respects the statutory requirements.
It appears that the explosion occurred in that part of the apparatus forming a link between two of the three 11,000 volts switches. That part of the equipment took the form of a horizontal cylinder, made from a strong alloy forging, 4½ in. long and about 15 in. in diameter which was 3 ft. from the ground. That cylinder appears for some reason to have failed to such an extent that it had been leaking the bitumen compound which formed the insulating material within the cylinder. As the bitumen leaked from the cylinder linking the two switches, the insulation level fell until the short circuit which caused the explosion occurred. All the electrical protection equipment operated properly to switch off all supplies to the substation when the explosion occurred. Detailed examination and tests of this equipment which simulated the electrical events of the previous day were undertaken on the following day and showed that the equipment was in good order and operating correctly.
It seems clear that the bitumen compound had been leaking from the cylinder, during the day time when temperatures are higher, on the day previous to the accident. Some of the local children were getting compound on that day from both the ground and that part of the switchgear where the explosion occurred the following day. It appears that several boys with quite large pieces of compound were seen locally on the day following the explosion. It appears that the two children were playing with this leaking bitumen inside the substation when the explosion occurred.
The cause of the original failure of the cylinder is not yet known and it would be wrong for me to speculate at this stage. All the relevant parts of the equipment are being
1420
examined by a specialised engineering laboratory, independent of the East Midlands electricity board, which is attached to a local power station.
All such substations, as the hon. Gentleman said, are regularly inspected by the East Midlands electricity board on a six-monthly basis, but may be visited more often for other reasons. The routine inspections require the signing of a pro-forma detailing any faults found following an examination of the apparatus in the substation, on the basis of a printed check list.
Two employees of the board had in fact carried out such a routine inspection of the substation on 31 May 1985 and their signed report of that inspection revealed the only faults in the substation as being the absence of some small labels. It is inconceivable that those employees would have missed leaked compound and the check list for the switchgear concerned particularly mentions that leakage must be checked for. The floor under that part of the equipment where the explosion occurred is fully open to view.
An electricity board employee was on the scene within half an hour of the explosion and one of the senior engineering inspectors from my Department went to the site on Tuesday 16 July before any significant change was made in the state of the equipment. The board quickly set up its own panel of inquiry which met on Friday 19 July and has met again since. The chairman of the investigating panel is from the board's headquarters and is thus not directly associated with the area in which the accident occurred, and the panel includes an independent safety officer from the Electricity Council.
The switchgear in the Selston substation is from a very well-known manufacturer, was made and installed in 1965, and is very substantial. There has never been a similar occurrence with equipment of this manufacture.
Planning permission is not required for such small substations. They must, however, because they supply ordinary premises at low voltage, be within about 300 yd of the furthest consumer fed from them. There are about 160,000 of that type of substation in England, Wales and Scotland and in the last 10 years there have been no other fatalities. In common with all electricity boards, the East Midlands electricity board makes great efforts to ensure that the public, and children in particular, are aware of the hazards associated with electricity. The board circulates all schools in its area with offers of safety visits, video literature and so on, and these efforts are usually intensified in early summer before the school holidays begin.
The technical operations of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales are governed by the Electricity Supply Regulations 1937, and regulation 38 requires area electricity boards to notify the Department of Energy of all those accidents on its works or circuits which have caused or were likely to have caused injury. The same regulation is followed by one which empowers the Department to investigate any accident or type of accident it wishes to. The East Midlands electricity board has complied with its obligations in that respect.
My engineering inspectorate examine carefully all such notifications made to it and make such visits and investigations of individual accidents as is appropriate. Therefore, this particular accident will be examined in detail by the Department to see whether the regulations have been observed and to identify whether the accident

1421
discloses any shortcomings in the regulations or in their application. My inspectors will have the benefit of the report from the board's own panel of inquiry.
All the accident notifications to the Department are collated and analyses are made with the object of detecting any trends to enable preventive action to be taken. These analyses go back many years and, for a variety of reasons, the incidence of accidents, fatalities and injuries on the electricity boards' equipment is in gradual but significant decline, and has been so over many years. The most important of the figures that come out of these analyses are published in the Secretary of State's annual reports to Parliament. Accidents in substations to members of the general public, which have resulted in fatality have amounted to six in the past 10 years. All of these took place in substations where, unlike at Selston, the conductors are in the open air, and which are therefore, under the regulations, surrounded with fences not less than 8ft in height. Most of those fatalities occurred after forcible entry and usually in the course of vandalism or attempted theft of equipment. Until this very tragic accident, there had been no fatalities in substations utilising metal-clad switchgear during that period.
There are more than 419,000 substations of all descriptions in the country. The number of injuries to the general public averages 14 per year, and include some falls and other minor matters. In general, the public are not subject to major or continuing hazards as a result of the existence of these installations.
My Department keeps the regulations under constant review and is at present undertaking a major update of the 1937 regulations as a whole. These will be the subject of widespread public consultation before being laid before the House in due course. I believe that experience to date does not indicate any need for radical change to those parts of the regulations applying to substations containing metal-clad switchgear, which have an extremely good safety record. None the less, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that should the results of the investigation into this accident indicate that changes to the regulations are required——
Mr. Haynes: The Minister referred to the distance between the substations and neighbouring residential property. The Selston substation is almost on top of neighbouring property. It must be outside the regulations. Perhaps the substation was there first and the property built later. Nevertheless, it is almost on top of the property.
1422
I am listening carefully to the Minister's promise to examine the regulations closely to determine whether they need to be tightened. However, I am not quite happy with what he has said, although I appreciate that he has not finished yet. I make an application, here today, for a public inquiry into the incident. I did not want to make that point, but the Minister's remarks have drawn me to do so.
Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Gentleman's point about the location of the substation in relation to the houses will be taken into account in the investigation and the review.
By virtue of section 66 of the Electricity Act 1947, I have the power to cause an inquiry to be held in any case where I deem it advisable to do so, in connection with any matter arising under the electricity supply legislation. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, of the inquiries being carried out by the board and by my engineering inspectorate, and of the verdict of the coroner's inquest, I shall consider whether a public inquiry would be desirable. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman in due course.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter in the House today because it is right that this very tragic matter should be thoroughly examined to see what lessons—which might go towards preventing similar occurrences—might be learned——
Mr. Haynes: A number of points are being drawn out because of what the Minister is saying. Police often go into schools to educate children about crime. For example, they tell them never to accept things from or go away with strangers. Does the Department issue instructions to the Central Electricity Generating Board and its regions to go into schools to educate children about the dangers of the substations, and tell them that they must keep away from them? That point should be seriously considered, as it would help to overcome the problem. As I said earlier, children will be children, so we must educate them to stay clear of such places.
Mr. Goodlad: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, electricity boards undertake a substantial programme of education in schools and provide demonstrations about electricity and its dangers. It is an enterprise in which everybody should join because there are clearly dangers in electricity. However, on the whole, I am confident that the regulations, which are subject to review, are adequate and that the practices are adequate as well.

Child Abuse
10.10 am
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I shall not have to start by facing the difficulties faced by Lord Shaftesbury in 1875 when he wrote to a friend who was profoundly concerned about the welfare of children and said:
"The evils you state are enormous and indisputable, but they are of so private, internal and domestic a character as to be beyond the reach of legislation and the subject would not, I think, be entertained in either house of Parliament."
I am pleased to have this opportunity to talk about child abuse. It has been estimated that more than one child dies every week at the hands of its parents or guardians, and that every year perhaps 50,000 others suffer lesser deaths—physical cruelty, mental torture, gross neglect, sexual abuse or severe emotional starvation within their families.
None of us can fail to experience a strong emotional reaction to the recent cases of child abuse and death which have been so widely reported. There have been errors of judgment and it is essential that lessons be learnt from those. Rather than simply adding to the sensationalistic and censorious responses to these recent appalling tragedies, for which simplistic solutions are too often proposed and social workers are more often than not used as whipping boys, I should like to try to redress the balance and see the problem of child abuse in a clearer context.
Sadly, there is certainly nothing new about child abuse and neglect. The use of pathological terms to describe its roots, causes and effects and the media's preoccupation with horrific cases should not obscure its long-standing nature or delude us into thinking that its incidence and characteristics are any different now from what has been described in literature over the years. Descriptions of barbarous treatment are widespread in literature and popular culture. There are frequent tales of infanticide, ritual sacrifice, mutilation, starvation, flogging and exploitation. It is only relatively recently that a child has been thought to have any right at all not to be abused or neglected.
I hope that this is not an area in which Members will advocate a return to Victorian values. In Victorian times children did not get a particularly good deal, as can be seen from graphic accounts in novels by Dickens and others. By 1822 there were laws for the protection of animals, but it was not until 1889 that, with the first children's charter, neglect and cruelty to children became illegal. The activity of baby farming where children faced a lingering death from starvation was notorious.
I should like to pay tribute to the work of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, founded in 1884. Like so many other organisations, it was founded by philanthropists responding to need as they saw it. In its 100 years over 9 million children have been helped. The society started with a policy of removing children from their homes and when necessary prosecuting their parents, but increasingly it tried to work with families in an attempt to keep children at home. At the turn of the century its enlightened founder, Benjamin Waugh, said:
"It is better to remove evil from the home than remove the child."
We still face precisely the same issue when dealing with child abuse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): I hope
1424
my hon. Friend will allow me to associate myself with her remarks about the valuable work of the NSPCC. She has drawn attention to the work done by its field workers and also to the work that it does centrally and to its resources, such as the valuable Sainsbury library.
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for endorsing my remarks. The NSPCC has constantly moved ahead arid has pioneered work and performed the ideal role of a voluntary body of embarking on experimental and innovative work, maintaining statistics, expanding research and developing social work services. It also influences legislation and is increasingly involved in educational work.
The one job for which nobody has training is parenthood. Frequently in cases of child abuse we find poorly skilled parents with remarkably disadvantaged backgrounds who are quite unprepared for the demands and pressures that a child places upon them. Many hope that a child will be source of love for them, and are quite unprepared for long days and nights tending difficult children with demanding behaviour. When the strains and stresses on the rest of their life build up, too frequently it is the child who is the butt of their anger.
The majority of child abuse cases involve children under five, although there are increasing numbers of cases involving children over 10; about one child in four is over 10 at the time of the abuse. Apart from physical injury, they fall into categories of failure to thrive, sexual abuse, which is causing increasing concern, neglect, and emotional abuse. Fewer than half live with both their natural parents. The parents are more likely to be unemployed, and nearly two thirds are in receipt of supplementary benefit.
A significant number of the parents have criminal records, nearly half the men, and one in five of the women, according to recent NSPCC research, and a large number of the criminal records relate to violent offences. This raises the issue of the extent to which criminal records should be available to those responsible for child placement. There are many background stress factors on the families. They include marital discord in virtually half the cases, unemployment, and financial problems, but many parents also complain of difficulties with the children, saying that the child is behaving badly.
Significantly, many parents have an unrealistic expectation of how the child should behave, so that when it behaves badly the parent takes it as a personal rejection. Many complain of being socially isolated. Heavy drinking is a factor in about one in five cases, and another factor is a parent with a psychiatric history. Frequently, parents have had experience of being in care and, significantly, of being battered themselves.
It is helpful to build up background information, but it is naive to think that by building up such information one can predict precisely where incidents will occur, because they are profoundly multifaceted. We know of the disasters and the problems, and we know when a child loses its life. Serious injuries arid fatalities are in decline. Social workers and public authorities cannot advertise successes. The confidentiality of the parents and children involved mean that they are protected and, as a result, the public always receive a jaundiced picture.
Social workers are particularly vulnerable. Widespread variations in practice exist and one disaster inevitably results in social workers being pilloried. We had a recent

1425
example in the press of a lady with seven broken ribs being sent home from hospital, an injury which she sustained in a car accident. The lady later died, but this did not result in a letter from the DHSS advising doctors to X-ray motor accident victims. One can imagine the indignation of the medical profession if this one clear case of bad practice had been used as an example for guidelines.
Few people appreciate the complexity of the job that a social worker has to do. Such a worker has to make life and death decisions, he or she has to decide whether or not to place a child on the child abuse register, whether or not to seek a care or supervision order or whether to go for wardship. The social worker has to decide whether or not the child should be removed from its home and if it should be fostered or adopted, or whether rehabilitation should be attempted. All this uncertainty causes delays, stress on the parents and stress on the child. Indecision is often one of the worst eventualities for a child. But throughout this, social workers have to do all that they can to maintain the trust of the parents.
Too often, child care legislation results from some appalling incident. It is interesting that the Curtis report in the 1940s resulted from a case where a child was killed when in the care of foster parents. It resulted in the setting up of the children's departments. In 1973 Maria Colwell died at the age of seven, and the inquiry report into the circumstances of her care was published a year later. Currently there is the Jasmine Beckford case, when again a child was returned from foster parents to a home with a history of violence.
It would be unfortunate if such a case resulted in widespread over-reaction. Social workers are always having to act according to the whims of public pressure. In recent months we have had a great outcry in the media about social workers removing too many children from their families, suggesting that this is oppressive and a sign of the totalitarian state, and that it is not right for children to be brought away from their natural parents. The Family Rights Group has been particularly active in advocating this view.
It would be sad now if we had a widescale over-reaction, as many feel we did after Maria Colwell, where magistrates, social workers and others are so afraid of being pilloried in the press that they over-reacted. We could safely take hundreds and thousands of children into care to lead a rather sterilised life, doing the best that could be done. But it must be right to try as hard as possible to leave a child with the family, with the proviso that if rehabilitation does not work a brave and firm decision must be made because the child needs a secure and predictable future.
We have had other fashions and trends, some more sinister than others. In some of the more Left-wing areas we have recently faced an obsession with a kind of anti-racism where, in cases of black children especially, social workers were interrogated if they decided that they should be removed from their homes. This is profoundly unhelpful to all families and an insult to the overwhelming majority of caring families from ethnic minorities, suggesting that somehow they need a different standard of care. It is especially incensing when some of the more Left-wing despots try to interfere with professional social
1426
work practice in this way and are then often the first to point the finger at social workers and condemn them when cases go wrong.
The social worker has a duty to his local authority, and that points in two profoundly opposite ways. The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 requires that
"children shown to be at risk are protected."
The Child Care Act 1980 lays
"a duty on a local authority to work to prevent children having to go into care whenever possible."
Somehow, social workers have to find a way down the middle.
I welcome the recent consultative paper issued by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on child abuse inquiries, trying to standardise the way in which inquiries are held. It is essential to hold such an inquiry speedily as soon as there has been an incident. The appalling cost of inquiries at present—up to £500,000 in one case—simply to have the local authority go through much of the same information that is gone through in the court case is unhelpful. We need a standardised way of learning from mistakes, adopting a similar approach to all inquiries so that comparisons can be made.
The British Association of Social Workers has been working for many months on policy papers for codes of practice in cases of child abuse, trying to look long term at the issues involved rather than simply responding to a crisis.
The emphasis laid by all is on the need for training. It was perhaps simplistic to think that a generic social worker could be produced after perhaps one year's training. Increasingly what is required is post-qualifying experience. The Seebohm idea of one front door so that families did not have to go to a variety of agencies is laudable, but to deal with the very difficult issues involved in child abuse must require post-qualifying training and experience.
In many ways, the probation service handles its training better. There is a major problem in that social workers do not receive mandatory awards. They go on their initial training as a result of secondment. It has been tentatively suggested that this makes it particularly difficult for colleges to fail CQSW students who are on secondment. This is an issue which I would like to see looked at further.
Above all, basic training must include a practical understanding and appreciation of child development. In most of the cases that have arisen the child has suffered considerable weight loss, which is one of the first signs of unhappiness and emotional distress. It is essential that some of this knowledge which health visitors have is understood more widely by social workers.
There is also the factor emphasised in the Maria Colwell report that the ability to communicate with children alone is essential. It is not possible to work only through the parents. Direct contact must be made with the child. Again I welcome the letter from the chief inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate to all authorities emphasising the need actually to see the child. I am constantly struck by the number of cases where a huge number of visits have been made but the child has not actually been seen. The child needs to be seen.
In my view, consideration should be given to adding a little more to the obligations of a family whose child is put on the child abuse register. That parent, for instance, might be entitled to a written statement in the way that in court an accused person who is refused bail is given a

1427
written statement of the reasons. Is it unreasonable for the parents whose child is placed on the child abuse register to have a written statement explaining their obligations and what is expected of them? Amongst the ideas that I suggest is, first, that for a child who is not attending a day nursery there should be regular medical inspections. Seeing a child unclothed at regular intervals is a vital ingredient. It is very hard for a social worker visiting a family to ask a child to remove its clothes. That needs to be done by a member of the medical profession.
There should also be an obligation on the parent to inform the local authority or the person responsible of any change in the location of the child. Frequently a disaster has been preceded by a change in the home circumstances —either the child has gone to live with someone else or there has been another significant change at home. Frequently it is a change which might not initially give rise to concern. For example, a father finding a job may to the uninitiated seem to be a good move, but it may mean that the mother is more isolated and more lonely, and the child is more at risk. It is vital for any change in circumstances to be investigated and considered.
Similarly, there is an impact on a family if there are changes in its support team. If a family aide leaves, or if a health visitor leaves, it is essential to recognise the significance and the impact that it may have on the child.
It is essential for management training to be introduced for the social work organisations. Social work departments are recent creations. There is no reason to despair—they have come a long way in a short time — but good management training is vital.
It is also important to have a qualified, experienced worker in each authority responsible for consulting on child abuse cases. The person who holds the child abuse register should not be an unqualified clerical assistant. It is essential to have someone who can give guidance and advice and weigh up information coming in to him.
I wish to spend a few moments discussing the input of the multi-disciplinary team. Children live in an environment in which their schools, their doctors, their health visitors, their local policemen — all sorts of people—have a part to play. A multi-disciplinary team is vital for dealing with cases of child abuse. However, it needs to be practical. It must know who is the chairman and what decisions have been reached. It cannot be just an exchange of hunch, intuition, feeling and suspicion. It must be a practical body which sets out clearly categorised points for action. Moreover, when the points for action have been established, there must be a specific recommendation about the action that needs to be taken if something goes wrong. It is easy enough to prescribe a recipe, but it is not so easy when one finds that the child is not there when one knocks at the door. To whom does one turn then? All of these eventualities need to be clarified.
The general practitioner has a particularly important role to play, but he does not always face up to this role. A recent research project on multi-disciplinary teams suggested that the general practitioner turns up only at 10 per cent. of the conferences to which he has been invited. The general practitioner's contribution is important. In the Maria Colwell case there was comment about the failure of the general practitioner to note the signs of child abuse. The Short report on children in care also referred to the vital role of the general practitioner and his reluctance sometimes to report suspected abuse by parents who are
1428
also his patients. A child has a right not to be abused. When he is making up his mind, that should be the overriding concern of the doctor. The child is his patient, too.
Teachers see a great deal of children when they are at school, but frequently they are remarkably unaware of the signs of child abuse. So the training of teachers is also important. A child who is reluctant to change for games may be hiding a bruise. Another sign may be that a child does not want to go home. That is particularly true of the child who wants to run away. It is essential that teachers should know what to do about such worrying signs. Health visitors, who have a practical knowledge of child development, also have a key role to play.
One member of the team who receives wide praise is the police officer. The police have become specialists and extremely sophisticated in dealing with cases of child abuse, particularly sexual abuse. They have the reputation for straightforward but sensitive communication with parents as well as for taking statements prior to any legal proceedings. They make a significant contribution to the. team.
Inevitably, tension can arise from the conflict between the need for confidentiality and the need to communicate about children at risk. Guidance on how to weigh up the conflicts between the different professional groups involved would be helpful.
Magistrates are as vulnerable as social workers to the pressures of public opinion and to the danger of making decisions which eventually result in disaster. I hope that this debate on child abuse will be used as an opportunity to discuss once again the future of our juvenile court arrangements: whether it makes sense to have adversarial conflict between the child and a local authority, in which parents have no official standing, or whether we should establish family courts and an inquisitorial system which would allow the court to become a seeker after the truth and to call expert witnesses, instead of being told that certain evidence is not admissible. Court delays can be particularly damaging to a child. A child of three months about whom a decision takes three or six months to be made spends two thirds of its life as the victim of indecision.
The public have a role to play. After a disaster has occurred we are too often told that somebody knew something, or thought something, or had heard something. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has played an excellent role in maintaining public confidence, but particularly at a time when families are geographically separated it is very important that good neighbours should be prepared to take action and to inform the relevant authorities of their concern.
I appreciate the steps which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security is taking to review the procedures and to provide further guidelines in cases of child abuse. It is essential that public confidence should be maintained. For this reason I urge him to think again about the collection of national statistics. None of us can fail to have powerful professional, political and above all personal reactions when things go wrong. I urge him not only to consider the natural outrage that is felt when disasters occur and to make every effort to learn from the mistakes, but to reach his conclusions with a full appreciation of the complexity of the task with which professional social workers and

1429
others have been entrusted and with an awareness of the good practice and of the progress that is being made in many areas.
10.35 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): Before the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) leaves the Chamber, may I say how very pleased my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) and I are that he has listened to our short debate. The Government join the Opposition in warmly congratulating the right hon. Gentleman upon his 40th anniversary as a Member of Parliament. We value having him as the Father of our House. We hope that he will long continue to play that role.
Today the right hon. Gentleman looks very much as he did in that splendid general election photograph of 1945, which is copied this morning in The Times. The importance of his election to his then Cardiff constituency and the importance of that watershed general election victory by the Labour party in 1945 passed me by entirely. I did not notice it. My only excuse is that I was then only eight days old. My mind was, alas, on other things. The House warmly congratulates the right hon. Gentleman on his anniversary.
Mr. James Callaghan: I am very grateful to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. May I intervene to congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) on her very interesting and wide-ranging speech, to which I listened with great attention. In the past I had some small responsibility for these matters. The hon. Lady referred to the consequences of the Seebohm commission. We have been unable to reconcile the care of the child with the control of the child. When they are in two separate hands, it is bound to be a recipe for division. The care of the child and the control of the child should surely be in the same hands, or there should at least be the same over-arching responsibility for them.
The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 has not worked out as it should have done, because the children's department in the Home Office, which was able to reconcile those two responsibilities, has disappeared. I am not suggesting that there should be an overhaul of the administration, but I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will consider carefully the hon. Lady's point about the need for reconciliation of the tension between magistrates and social workers. That cannot be good for the future welfare of these children. I hope that he will forgive me for saying that. I fear that I shall have to leave the Chamber very soon, but I shall read his speech.
Mr. Patten: Characteristically, the right hon. Gentleman has pre-empted a large part of my speech. I shall turn from time to time during it to exactly those tensions. When the right hon. Gentleman has a chance to read my speech, he will see that his wise words are reflected in what I am about to say. I join him in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West for the characteristically measured, balanced and articulate way in which she dealt with this most difficult problem. The House listens to her with respect because she
1430
has experience of these problems in both the social work and voluntary sectors. She is also a distinguished justice of the peace.
It is curious that my hon. Friend's Adjournment debate should be on the day after the trial of those involved in the tragic case of Tyra Henry. That case, and cases like it, cannot fail to stir the emotions of everyone who reads about them. I appreciate that, and I share the abhorrence which has been well reflected in what has been said about the cases that have occurred this year. However, those emotions must never be allowed to cloud the real problems that exist for social workers, the courts, doctors and others who have the difficult task of trying to balance the rights and welfare of the child with the need to return a child to his or her family, while ensuring that the protection of the child is paramount. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth mentioned those tensions.
Recent tragic cases have brought home to us all the sad extremes to which parents may go in abusing their children. But they are extremes, and there is a danger that they may give a false impression that all is failure. Such statistics as we have from the NSPCC and other bodies seem to demonstrate that, although child abuse cases must always be matters for considerable concern, there has been a welcome levelling-off, if not a slight decline, in the incidence of child abuse in recent years. My hon. Friend made an important point about whether our national statistics are adequate for our purposes. I wish to deal with that point in more detail than I can fit into the short time that remains, so I shall write to my hon. Friend and set out my views.
One problem is the under-reporting of child abuse, whether it be physical or mental. It is interesting that we have had many more reports of child sexual abuse during the past two or three years than we have ever had. Does that represent an increase in that disgusting practice, or does it represent an increase in the reporting of such cases because people are now prepared to talk about it? I believe that the latter is true, and that the incidence of reporting has been the most important trend in recent years.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Bottomley)indicated assent.
Mr. Patten: I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment — the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) — who has considerable experience in social work issues, agrees with that.
Professional staff in all disciplines and in all authorities who are in contact with children and families work extremely hard, with much unpublicised success, to help families who have problems. However, I should make it clear that a minority of social workers, social work managers and their political masters—the councillors in borough, district and county authorities— have rightly been criticised for their failings. But they are a tiny minority. The vast majority of social workers perform their difficult tasks extremely well. Most of us in the Chamber this morning would find it acutely difficult to perform those tasks.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, sadly, some teachers, policemen, magistrates, health visitors and members of the public have not acted as responsibly as they might have done in some cases?
Mr. Patten: That has sometimes been the case, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that only a small minority are involved. An unfortunate side effect of cases such as the ones about which we have read this year is that the entire profession gets a bad name for the failings of the few. That is not to say that the few should not be strongly criticised, or that the failure of management properly to direct social workers in their tasks should not be exposed. We should also expose the failings of a small minority of councillors, especially in one or two London boroughs, who have interfered dramatically with the professional judgments of social workers and made their jobs almost impossible.
These are not anecdotal remarks from a Conservative Minister. One need only read a report in last week's edition of the journal Community Care from social workers in the London borough of Lambeth, who resent the political interference that makes their jobs much more difficult. Councillors, having laid down policy guidelines, should not give in to the temptation of interfering with professional judgments. That is not their role.
All our efforts in the community stress that we must have an integrated approach to dealing with child abuse. A variety of forms of help can be made available to rehabilitate families. Authorities and voluntary organisations have developed a wide range of facilities, such as day and family centres, which provide much advice and help. In parallel to this activity, we must encourage the entire community to understand its role in helping families in trouble. That echoes a remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West. For example, there has been an encouraging growth in self-help groups in the community which offer assistance to families under stress — perhaps with telephone help lines. We should encourage the continuing growth of help in the community and care by the community for children at risk.
However, we must not be complacent. My hon. Friend referred, kindly, to some of the initiatives taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health and myself. We cannot stop there. We have a considerable task ahead of us in ensuring that tragic cases are avoided in the future. No one in the House would suggest that changes in the law, the guidance that we send out, the statements that I make from the Dispatch Box attempting to influence social workers, social work practice, social work management and those who direct social workers will stamp out the problem. We know that that will never happen, but we must redouble the efforts that we have made during the past few months to ensure that such cases become less likely.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Although I agree entirely that voluntary organisations and communities can help, we must ask how much a voluntary organisation can do in a case of child abuse before a professional judgment is needed. Neighbours looking after a family which they know is under stress may not always see the signs of abuse. Reliance on voluntary services must be limited because, in most cases, professional judgments are needed.
Recently, I heard about a Dr. Barnardo's pilot scheme for providing day fostering to parents under stress. The scheme looks after the child, and teaches the mother how to look after her children properly. Although it is a voluntary organisation, I believe that the professionals must judge how much that stress could be eased by
1432
removing the child from the home for a few hours a day. I am worried that if there is a reliance on voluntary organisations the necessary professional judgments will not be made.
Mr. Patten: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening because he has raised some important points. I know of his interest in these matters. I agree that we must use voluntary organisations carefully. Professional judgments must not be suborned or second-guessed by voluntary organisations, individuals or politicians. However, professional social workers are employed by organisations such as Dr. Barnardo's and the NSPCC. We need partnership, and I believe that social work departments should take the lead in organising voluntary groups and bringing them together so that the problems to which the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred can be resolved.
In the nine minutes that are left, I hope that I shall have time to pinpoint the six main points of our overall strategy. The first is that we must continue to learn lessons from serious cases that arise. Based on experience that we have gained from such investigations, on 4 July we issued a consultative paper which sets out to speed up the process of investigation. I am extremely pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West gave it such a warm welcome. We had close consultation with the social work profession, which also has warmly welcomed the paper.
I remember doing an interview on a BBC radio programme a couple of weeks ago, when I made that announcement. At the end of the interview the rather surprised announcer said that the BBC had telephoned the British Association of Social Workers, which said that it agreed with everything that I had said. I was delighted about that warm welcome. I am not criticising the BASW, but simply saying that it was a great disappointment to the BBC commentator.
Secondly, we must make sure that the law is working well. We responded quickly to the excellent report by the Select Committee on Social Services. Child care law is the essential legal foundation on which much of our work to provide help for abusing families is built. We intend, through our current review of child care law to produce a much clearer and much more consistent legal framework in which child care practitioners can operate. That is critical, because there is an enormous area of overlap between the work of my Department and that of the Lord Chancellor's Department. Over the past few months we have had a very helpful set of informal consultations with a wide range of groups of those involved about possible changes and potential benefits that may accrue from changes in child care laws.
There has been a suggestion that that is taking rather a long time. All that I would say to those who say that we are taking a long time is that it is an incredibly complicated area. We have a substantial number of consultation papers, which stand a foot or so high. It is a very complex law. Strong feelings and human emotions are closely involved. However, we shall issue a consultation paper in the autumn—by which I mean the autumn—so that those interested can look at our ideas for reform. Those ideas will of course be related to the general examination being conducted by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, into the concept of family courts. That idea

1433
does not fall within the remit and responsibilities of my Department, but should such things come about in child care law that would be critically important.
Thirdly, we must make absolutely sure that our guidance is good. We must have a sound legal foundation on which we can continue to develop the procedural framework for dealing with child abuse. We are trying to develop the two things together. I am not waiting for the final reviews of the legal framework for child law before developing a better and tighter procedural framework for dealing with child abuse. The message from so many child abuse inquiries—alas, there have been many in the past — has pointed to the critical importance of good collaboration among authorities. My hon. Friend also referred to that matter.
Over the past 15 years successive Governments have issued a wide range of advice in that area, and we believe that the time is now appropriate for a much more comprehensive review of that material—to bring the whole lot up to date, to try to make it as sensible, but as direct, as possible, and to try to introduce advice for the first time ever about the extremely difficult and sensitive area of child sex abuse. I hope to be able to provide a collaborative framework within which professional and voluntary sector child care practice can develop. We are also looking at prevention and training, to which my hon. Friend referred. We hope to issue a further consultative paper by the end of the year.
If anyone is impatient with the idea of producing consultative papers, let me tell him that again it is a complicated area. We must consult the professions involved and carry them with us, because it is the social workers on the ground who have to do those exceptionally difficult tasks. However, I am determined that the guidance that will flow from the consultation by the end of the year will be definitive; of the sort that we have not seen before in social work practice.
Fourthly, we must monitor what the statutory social service departments actually do. It is sometimes forgotten by the general public and the media that local authorities run social work departments. They have the legal responsibility for looking after children in care. It is we who have to lay down the guidance, and the development of the professional skills of social workers is an essential part of our bid to improve services. As a contribution to that development, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set up on 1 April this year a Social Services Inspectorate. I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West said about the work of the inspectorate so far. It was set up with the agreement of the statutory authorities. I welcome the tribute that she paid
1434
to the work already done by the chief inspector, Mr. Utting, who sent out a letter giving additional guidance on child abuse.
One of the first tasks that I have set the Social Services Inspectorate is to have a radical, rapid look at practice on the ground in connection with child abuse and report back as a matter of urgency so that we can build those conclusions into guidance which we shall introduce in order, we hope, to minimise the risk of tragic cases such as have been described today.
Fifthly, we are introducing regular structured reviews of the circumstances of children in care, trying to balance the needs of children's families and the worries and concerns of social work departments against the needs, interests and welfare of the children. In the light of the work that we are doing on child care law, we are looking again at the guidance that we are giving on that.
Finally, we hope to promote throughout the social work profession and the social work world, nationally and locally—it is at local level that so much is done—the idea that common sense is critical in what social workers do, and that in the continuing debate on whether one should be more or less cautious about a child's welfare, whether to return it to a family should there be any element of risk, in the last resort it must be the welfare and safety of the child that come first.
Recognising that the individual social worker has a difficult role, we believe that he or she must in the end follow the basic procedures laid down — the basic guidance that I gave in April this year. That is that if a child is at risk, and if a social worker has been told to visit and see that child, the social worker must do so. There is no excuse whatever for any social worker, whatever the difficulties he is working under, not to visit a child who is deemed to be at risk. Equally, there is absolutely no excuse for any social work managers not to have definitive instructions and structures within which social workers work. They should give guidance and make sure that it is carried through.
I think that social workers in some parts of the country would be greatly helped in carrying out their task if they were not interfered with by the politicians, who sometimes control and adversely affect what they do, as we have seen recently in Lambeth and one or two other London boroughs.
The Government are determined to introduce by Christmas a new set of guidelines for the entire social work profession that will be based on the six main points that I have mentioned. We hope that this will minimise further tragic cases of the sort that have so appalled the nation.
It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Friday sittings).

Okehampton Bypass
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the bypass of Okehampton on the A30.
The House will know that earlier this year the Government's compulsory purchase orders for a route for the bypass to the south of the town were referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945. That Committee, by a majority of four to two, recommended rejecting the orders, and proposed instead a route to the north of the town. This recommendation was contrary to that of the independent inspector, who held a 96-day public inquiry during which all the issues were exhaustively discussed. He endorsed the southern route which has been the route preferred by all successive Administrations since 1976. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I agreed with the inspector, that the balance of environmental and economic advantage lies in favour of the southern route, and we proceeded to make the orders.
One thing is clear—everyone is united about the need for a bypass, although I am fully aware of the strong and conflicting opinions which the route of the proposed bypass has aroused, both in Parliament and in the south-west of England. This issue must be resolved once and for all.
The Joint Committee believes that a route to the north could be constructed quickly. I must tell the House that it takes on average 13 years to plan and build a road.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Rubbish.
Mr. Ridley: With the best will in the world and no difficulties arising, I doubt whether we could complete a northern route in much under eight or nine years. It could be much more if there were difficulties, or if the inspector was again to recommend the southern route. For the people of Okehampton and the people of Devon and Cornwall the long delay and the uncertainty would be intolerable when the southern route could be completed in three years.
Parliamentary Select Committees make reports to Parliament, and it is for Parliament to accept or reject them. In this case a procedure for doing this is laid down in the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act. It provides in section 6 for a confirming Bill to be brought in. Accordingly, the Government will introduce such a Bill, at the earliest opportunity, to confirm the southern route.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is it not an outrage—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".]—that the Secretary of State should announce such an insensitive and arrogant decision'? How can he possibly pretend that he can justify the destruction of an area of supreme natural beauty——
Mr. David Harris: Rubbish.
Mrs. Dunwoody: —which is a national asset, on the basis of needing to push ahead with a bypass because it will take 13 years to find an alternative route?
If work were started immediately — the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the southern route cannot be started immediately because a Bill will have to pass through the Houses of Parliament—it would still take until 1988 to finish the requisite road. Will the right hon.
1436
Gentleman admit that if the northern route were started as quickly it would take only two more years to complete a route which would do no damage and which would be environmentally acceptable?
As the northern route has already been surveyed, all the preparatory work has been done and the environmental groups concerned have said that they would be anxious to speed the agreement of the planning procedures for the northern route, how can the Minister justify ignoring all the evidence and the views of the Joint Committee? He is saying, in effect, that the interests of the nation as a whole are of no concern to him and that only financial matters concern him. He should resign and do something constructive to protect transport in Britain.
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Lady has some explaining to do. On 3 September 1976, the then Labour Government issued a press notice which read:
"The preferred route passes to the south of Okehampton."
If that was the view of her party then, she has to tell us why she has changed her mind. She will have an opportunity to do that when the confirming Bill comes forward. Secondly, my Department advises me that, if we were to go for a route to the north of the town, the inspector's report on the line order could be expected to be with the Department by 1939. The inspector's report on the compulsory purchases order might be with us by the end of 1991, assuming that there were no difficulties. It would then take three years to construct the road. The earliest completion date would be about 1994.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Absolute rubbish.
Mr. Ridley: If the inspector were to consider the route to the north at a public inquiry and report that the route should go to the south, as his predecessor did, it is highly likely that we should spend eight or nine years only to find ourselves in the same position without any route for Okehampton.
The hypocrisy of the Labour party sickens me. The bypass means jobs. There will not be jobs in Devon and Cornwall unless I get the bypass built. If the hon. Lady cares about the unemployed, she will be true to what she knows is the right decision.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a Back-Bench day. I ask hon. Members to put their questions briefly.
Mr. Peter Rost: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if the Department of Transport had obeyed its own policy guidelines as laid out in paragraph 58 of the 1976 circular—
"no new route…should be constructed through a national park…unless",
in effect, there is no "reasonable alternative" — the bypass could have been built along the northern route long ago? Further, will he take aboard the fact that by so arrogantly overruling his own policies and reversing a decision that had been carefully considered by a Joint Committee he is creating a constitutional precedent that will undoubtedly arouse a great deal of criticism in this place, in another place and outside? Have we not had enough banana skins in recent months, and have not inspectors and Departments come to wrong decisions before?
Mr. Ridley: I understand that my hon. Friend took the opposite view to mine in the Joint Committee. I must complete his quotation from the national park circular. It continues:
"Application of the policy to some parks does, however, give rise to particularly difficult considerations because of their geographical location."
This is an example of just that. The Statutory Orders (Special Procedures) Act 1945 lays down the procedure for the report of a Joint Committee to be considered by Parliament. Therefore, it is not unconstitutional to follow the carefully laid down provisions in the Act. Furthermore, my hon. Friend may not be aware that, on 4 May 1949, the then Labour Government introduced a confirming Bill to alter the report of a Joint Committee on the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board Order. There is nothing unique or unconstitutional about what the Government are doing.
Dr. David Owen: Is it not a fact that the national parks are vested in this House and it is for the House to decide whether to accept the Minister's judgment, which many of us believe to be wrongly based in terms of its historical perspective and in terms of the estimate which he has given to achieve the northern route? Exaggerating his claim will not help his case when it comes to the House. Will he confirm that no Whip will be placed on Conservative Members and that the issue will be judged on its merits? Will he confirm also that there will be no attempt to impose a governmental view on what should be an environmental choice for all right hon. and hon. Members?
Mr. Ridley: I confirm that it is for Parliament to take a decision upon reports prepared by the Committees of Parliament. This issue can be resolved only by Parliament. Committees do not make decisions; they make recommendations to Parliament which, in the end, has to decide one way or another. We are giving Parliament an opportunity to do that. As to what guidance is given to my right hon. and hon. Friends, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. I shall be interested to hear what guidance the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) gives to his hon. Friends.
Sir Peter Mills: As the hon. Member whose constituency is affected, I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Cabinet on their decision. I am sure that he will know that the people of Okehampton and Cornwall are delighted as well. This is a courageous decision and the right one in the circumstances. I ask him to urge the Government forward, enabling the Bill to have a speedy passage through Parliament, so that the sufferings of the people of Okehampton and Cornwall will be ended finally. The Leader of the Opposition came to the west country recently and said that there would be hundreds of thousands of new jobs under a Labour Government. It is extraordinary that the very action that would help unemployment and the economic situation in the south-west is now being frustrated by the Opposition and the alliance.
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sure that he is right that we must consider the interests of his constituents and the people of Devon and Cornwall. It might interest the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) to know that, when her Government
1438
consulted the people of Okehampton and its surrounding area in 1976 in a comprehensive questionnaire to which 1,030 people filled in the answers, 55 per cent. expressed themselves unquestionably in favour of the southern route. The people concerned, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) represents so ably, are clearly in favour of the Government's decision.
Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister appreciate that, while we recognise the importance of jobs and the need for a bypass at Okehampton, his statement will be seen as shameful? He has come to the House on the last day of this term to make it and, for the sake of two years, he is prepared to desecrate one of our national parks. This is final proof of the Government's complete disregard of things environmental.
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must check. I was willing to make the statement yesterday, but it was agreed between the usual channels, including his own usual channels, that I should make the statement today instead. I was determined to make a statement to the House rather than answer a written question, and it is hard to be hauled over the coals when I have taken the trouble to come here when the House is sitting.
The hon. Gentleman is constructing an argument on a false premise. He said that adopting the northern route will take two years longer, and his case and that of the right hon. Member for Devonport rests on that proposition. However, that is not true. The northern route would take eight years at least, and perhaps still longer. I have no intention of short-circuiting the proper procedures for consulting and for public inquiries, and I am sure that he would not wish me to do so. Are the Opposition suggesting that we would cheat the people of Okehampton of the opportunity of consultation on a northern route? There is no northern route, and we should have to start from scratch. I advise the hon. Gentleman to get a better argument before he comes to discuss the merits of this when we debate the confirming Bill.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the events in the Joint Committee, while within the letter of the original law, were not within the spirit of it, and that a small alteration to the proceedings of the House would stop a rehearing of a public inquiry, which is what took place on this occasion? I hope that my right hon. Friend will use whatever muscle he has to help that change take place.
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. The orders were referred to the Joint Committee because it was proposed to take open space, not national parkland. The 1945 Act is relevant only where open space land is taken. It was held by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that inadequate open space land could be offered in return for the land that was to be taken. The Joint Committee was asked to look not at national parks or the route of the bypass, but at the quality and quantity of the replacement land. Therefore, it greatly widened its remit —I am not criticising it—by going into the issue of where the bypass should be, as that had been determined by a public inquiry endorsed by my right hon. Friend and myself.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that the Secretary of State knows that there is general agreement that something must be decided soon

1439
for the people of Okehampton and Cornwall, will he nevertheless accept that people are opposed to his attitude because he knows that the Government will change the procedures for planning inquiries in major legislation to be introduced in the coming Session? He knows that he is creating a precedent of breaking into national parks, which many people regard as extremely distasteful.
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)? In the knowledge that this is not a party political issue, will he confirm that there will not be a party-political, determined, steam-rollered vote on a matter of vital importance for jobs and the environment? This is a matter not of Government policy but of local government policy, and hon. Members should be left to decide freely on it. The Government should not be dictating what some of their Members should do on a decision with which they fundamentally disagree.
Mr. Ridley: I quite see why the hon. Gentleman does not want to whip the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon)—he has apologised to me for not being here—who is keen that the road should be built. I repeat that questions on what is done by my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary are not for me to respond to.
I take the hon. Gentleman to task on his suggestion that there is something improper about the proceedings, which are strictly in accordance with the 1945 Act. The decision was referred to Parliament when it was decided to put the matter before the Joint Committee. The procedure is laid out in the Act and all the Government are doing is scrupulously following procedure. As the high court of Parliament has now made this decision, nobody can complain. The democratic nature of what I am suggesting is patently clear and obvious. The House can decide by vote and that is the right way to settle the matter.
Mr. Harris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision will be received with massive relief in Cornwall, not least in my constituency, which is the most westerly and remote in the south-west peninsula, because poor communications are the biggest problem that Cornwall faces in trying to attract jobs? Should not the so-called environmentalists, and those who misguidedly support them in the House on this issue, stop and think what enormous damage they are doing not just to Okehampton, which again this weekend will suffer its usual horrendous traffic jams, but to the whole economy of Cornwall, to every industry, to farming, to fishing and, not least, to the tourist trade?
Mr. Ridley: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that this is a matter of vital importance to the local people of Okehampton, Devon and Cornwall. For the House to ride roughshod over their economic interests is tempting our tolerance too far. I hope that hon. Members who are not certain about this matter will take the opportunity of the recess to go down to Okehampton and discuss it with the people living in the south-west. I am sure that my hon. Friend can arrange for them to meet the people who are vitally affected by these decisions.
If we are at all serious in our desire to find more employment in any part of the kingdom, we must not stand in the way of doing away with impediments to the growth of business and the improvement of the tourist trade. The general economic position of the south-west is grievously
1440
threatened by the absence of this road. If jobs mean anything, they have to be provided by uncorking this bottleneck.
Many people, including the inspector who held the public inquiry, believe that the southern route for the road would do less damage to the environment than a northern route would. It is not as if there is a solid opinion on the environmental aspect. There are two views on that, too. I am certain that the balance of advantage lies in the route that the Government propose, and I hope that hon. Members will take heed of what local people want.
Mr. Steen: I think that the House knows that I have a sneaking admiration for my right hon. Friend and for the way in which he has handled the bus and aviation Bills. However, does he realise that he is wasting time by pushing for a route through the national park because his officials have said that that route can be built by 1988 whereas the northern route cannot he built by 1990? Will my right hon. Friend check during the recess with officials who are against the northern route to see whether they are right in saying that that route will take eight or nine years longer? Officials have made that claim, but experts who have been involved on work on other motorways and dual carriageways have said that there would be only a two-year difference between the two routes.
Will my right hon. Friend also please realise that if the southern route were built through the national park, a bottleneck would occur at the other end of the dual carriageway because there is only a single carriageway from Okehampton to Launceston? All that we shall do is to move the bottleneck to the other side of Okehampton.
Does the Secretary of State realise the damage that he will do to the Conservative party by uniting the environmental and conservation lobbies throughout Britain who will be determined that the southern route should not proceed? Does he really want to drive a coach and horses through his own side?
Mr. Ridley: We hope to complete the Launceston part of the road in roughly the same time scale as the southern bypass could be completed. If we went for a northern route for the bypass, there would be a long period when the only bit that was not proper double-track bypass would be the centre of Okehampton where the present road goes. That would produce chaos in the town as well as for those who are trying to pass through to Devon and Cornwall.
I have checked endlessly with all concerned and the times that I gave for the completion of the line order and the CPOs by 1991 is the fastest that my officials think that it could possibly go if all goes well. I must take my hon. Friend through this likelihood. An inspector of great repute, having considered the matter at great length and heard all the evidence over 96 days, has come down in favour of the southern route for environmental as well as economic reasons. Therefore, if another equally impartial and wise inspector were to consider the evidence again at a public inquiry into a northern route, it seems prima facie likely that he would come to the same conclusion as the first inspector. If that happened, we should have gone through six years or so and still no decision would have been taken and no possibility of taking a decision would exist. The matter has been put to the high court of Parliament and must be resolved by Parliament.
Mr. Gerrard Neale (Cornwall, North): I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend, whose decision will

1441
bring relief and reassurance to many local government organisations and other groups in the west country and particlarly in Cornwall. I have no doubt that in my constituency, as in other parts of the county, there will be horror among those who thought that they might support the alliance, and the prospective Liberal candidate for my constituency will be thunderstruck when he hears what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) have said.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the extension of the dual carriageway from Whiddon Down to Okehampton takes several miles out of the national park as well as putting some back in? Will he also confirm that, if he had not proposed to introduce the Bill and had tried to accelerate the procedures on a northern route, there would have been an outcry, because all the people to the north would expect all their rights to be honoured and to have full consultation and a public inquiry? The time scale that my right hon. Friend puts on a northern route is too short rather than too long.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the RAC should be congratulated on sending a leaflet to all its members? I have an RAC leaflet sent to people planning to drive to Cornwall which says:
"Driving to Cornwall? The A30 bottleneck at Okehampton can mean long summer delays."
Cornwall cannot tolerate that continuing hassle and the continuing burden on its tourist and other industries. I congratulate my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I look forward to hearing whether the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) will be whipping the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)——
Mr. Simon Hughes: He will not.
Mr. Ridley: —or whether it will be the other way round. We are told that it is an alliance, so presumably it will behave as an alliance. It will be interesting to see which way it breaks.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) rightly says, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is trying to pontificate on what is in the interests of the people of Devon and Cornwall. It is worth finding out first what people think.
I agree with my hon. Friend that if we sought to accelarate the procedures in investigating a northern route we should attract the full ire of the environmental lobby and of the people who have interests on that route. That would be intolerable. Just because the environmental lobby has decided that it wants to sacrifice the nothern route, that does not mean that people who have interests on that route should not have their rights properly considered.
I have not seen the RAC leaflet that my hon. Friend mentioned, but I hope and pray that it will not be for too many more years that people have to queue for hours before proceeding to their holidays in Devon and Cornwall.

Johnson Matthey Bankers
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
Mr. Speaker: In view of the time taken by the statement on the Okehampton bypass, I suggest that the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) should continue until noon and that the debate of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) should conclude at 12.30 pm.
11.27 am
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Today is the last day of term for hon. Members and it ought to be the last day in public office of the governor of the Bank of England. His responsibility and culpability are awesome. He has presided over a fantasy so bizarre that it is believable only because it is true. He has supervised a bank that has financed fraud and provided money for the purposes of criminals.
It is no wonder that a number of peope to whom I have spoken in the City of London believe that the appropriate course for the governor of the Bank of England would be for him to tender his resignation. Certainly the sort of people whom I represent can only view with incredulity the behaviour in this dreadful affair of those who claim to be their betters.
My investigations have tended to show that Johnson Matthey lent money to people who were known to have been dishonest, or would have been shown to be dishonest if Johnson Matthey had carried out even the most elementary inquiries. It seems to me that all the members of the credit rating committee of Johnson Matthey Bankers are liable to be sued for breach of their fiduciary duty at common law, which duty is to act in the best interests of their company. I ask the governor of the Bank of England why the members of the credit rating committee have not been sued for a breach of their fiduciary duty and why they have not received writs of negligence.
When I said some days ago that Mr. Mahmoud Sipra, whose El Saeed empire was the basis of the collapse of JMB, had committed fraud and that JMB ought to have known about it and ought not the have lent his empire vast sums of money, Mr. Sipra appeared on BBC television and Channel 4 news and said that he was a man of great integrity. If Mr. Sipra believes that, he is living in a fantasy world of his own and his memory must be extraordinarily defective.
Only last year, on 9 October 1984, a judgment for fraud was given against him in the New York district court by Judge Kevin Duffy. I have a transcript of that judgment with me, so of course I can repeat it outside should the Whips ask me to do so. The judge said:
"The callous indifference to the law exhibited by Dr. Galin and Sipra from the inception of these actions in 1979 to the day of trial is only one example of their bad faith."
He also said:
"Dr. Galin used Rascator and Sipra used Intra-Span in order to further their fraudulent plan."
He began his summing-up by saying that "old-fashioned piracy" and "extraordinary greed" were at the heart of the case.
The governor of the Bank of England must explain to this House how a British bank supervised by the governor of the Bank of England could be lending money to a man who, throughout the period of the lending, was, according

1443
to the judiciary, acting with callous indifference to the law in relation to fraud. That question lies at the heart of the Johnson Matthey collapse.
When Mr. Ian Fraser, a director of Johnson Matthey, was put on warning about Sipra in 1982, he said that Mr. Sipra would perform — that the man known to his friends as the Cobra and to his enemies as the Devil would meet his contracts and repay his loans. How on earth could Mr. Fraser have said, and believed, that?
We know now, in relation to Mr. Sipra's empire, that since the collapse of Johnson Matthey these companies have been wound up or have had a receiver put in by the governor of the Bank of England: Nitemed, Monostick, Eurostem Maritime, Bulk Ferks, Trans-Gulf Lines, the Khyber Horce Company and Brooke Oil. They have all failed to perform, and Johnson Matthey must have known that they would fail to perform. Many millions of pounds have been lost to Johnson Matthey as a result. I could go on speaking about frauds by Mr. Sipra, but that might take us outside the subject.
What can one say about the behaviour of Mr. Ian Fraser, a director of Johnson Matthey? He, clearly, is in breach of his fiduciary duty at common law — I understand that he is a rich man—and should be sued for negligence because of that breach. But can we leave it there? We are talking about the loss of vast sums of money, and it seems that there are only three explanations for Mr. Fraser's behaviour. The first is that he might be a simpleton, the second is that he has turned a blind eye to fraud and the third is that he is a party to fraud. I believe that we can reject the first—that he is a simpleton—so that we are left with two alternatives. Either he has turned a blind eye to fraud or he is a party to fraud.
Mr. Fraser should be subjected to the most vigorous examination, and we may have to conduct a special investigation in this case and certain witnesses may have to be given immunity. My private inquiries into what is going on reveal that the fraud squad accepts that there was massive fraud and that the directors of Johnson Matthey were involved. However, there are enormous evidential problems and it is beginning to look as though no one will be brought to court because of those evidential problems.
The governor of the Bank of England may bear some responsibility for that—for giving these people nine months in which to lose documents, to sort out affairs with their accountants and get their alibis fixed up. It is an appalling state of affairs and the governor of the Bank of England is the man who primarily should answer for that.
I come to the case of a loan made to Ravensbury Investments to purchase Provincial Properties Wales, to enable that company to develop a piece of land in Barry and carry out a property development. Mr. Michael Hepker, who is the beneficial owner of Ravensbury Investments and Provincial Properties, has publicly said that I am being unfair to him, that he, too, is a man of great integrity and that he is a respectable business man.
What kind of respectable business man, when he is reported to the takeover panel and evidence is given against him to that panel—as it was on 12 July 1985— has friends who will telephone the person giving evidence and say that his legs will be blown off if he does not behave himself? What kind of respectable business man makes a fool of 12 police officers and sends them on a bogus raid to discover illegal firearms? That was last Friday.
What kind of respectable business man tries to ruin a man's life by reporting him to the licensing authorities
1444
when he has previously worked for Mr. Hepker? What kind of respectabley business man makes allegations of fraud and then has to withdraw them in writing to the police? What kind of respectable business man so frightens solicitors for the companies to which I referred that they must put the documents in a safe because, on Mr. Hepker's record, they fear that they will be raided?
It has been put to me that some attempts might be made to shut me up or encourage me not to talk in the House. People such as the Whips say, "Say it outside." The Islington police have been warned in relation to one of the men. Yesterday I took the trouble to warn Commander Hunter at the Hackney office about any possible consequences for my ex-wife, my son and myself.
Mr. Hepker's background, which Johnson Matthey apparently never investigated, is that he is a tax expert and drew up schemes originally on tax avoidance and then went massively into tax evasion. He set up a company called Marchmont Associates Ltd, which at one time shared offices with Rossminster, a company advised by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. That company is massively involved in tax evasion—in shipping large sums of money out of the country to offshore islands— and the non-payment of tax. Marchmont Associates is also associated with a company called Supersaver.
Only yesterday, Mr. Hepker appeared in the Companies Court. This case will smash offshore lax evasion. Mr. Hepker's time is running out. Indeed. he is under investigation and there are several files inches thick in the possession of the special investigations branch of the Inland Revenue. The special investigator who is hunting him down is Mr. Bryn Jones, who works for the Treasury, so no doubt the Minister can confirm that those investigations are taking place.
Mr. Hepker goes to Johnson Matthey and says, "I want to borrow this money. Provincial Properties will cany out a property development in Barry." What he forgot to tell Johnson Matthey was that the Tesco property development fell through before he borrowed the money. In other words, he borrowed the money by fraudulent misrepresentation and committed an extraordinarily serious crime — in effect, the theft from Johnson Matthey of £1·5 million.
How can I prove that Mr. Hepker knew that the Tesco deal had fallen through? I can prove it because I have counsel's opinion — not counsel for Mr. Hepker's enemies, but counsel for Mr. Hepker. He had to admit to counsel that he knew that the deal had fallen through. Worse than that, he not only knew that it had fallen through, but he went to Johnson Matthey and said that the deal was still on. That was a major fraud.
Matters become even more extraordinary because, once Tesco had withdrawn from the deal, the price of the land plummeted. The price that it had been agreed should be paid for the land was ridiculous, but Mr. Hepker carried on with the deal and bought the land. Why? The only money that has been passed over in this case—£393,310 —was passed over on 8 July 1981. That was over the odds because another £110,000 should have been paid later. It was not.
That still leaves £1 million-plus, which was borrowed. hThat £1 million-plus has never been used for the benefit of Ravensbury Investments Ltd or of Provincial Properties Wales. It has been transferred through a series of companies for Mr. Hepker's personal use. That is a

1445
massive fraud. There are two frauds — a fraud on Johnson Matthey and a massive fraud on Ravensbury Investments.
How did Johnson Matthey behave? How did that British bank under the supervision of the governor of the Bank of England behave? It never discovered that the Tesco deal had fallen through. There is no Tesco store on the land in Barry. Johnson Matthey never checked, either then or in the years that followed, on the value of its security. It was told that the land was worth £1 million. When the bank was recently forced by the company to carry out a survey, it appeared that the land was worth £200,000. The bank never monitored the activities of Ravensbury Investments Ltd or of Provincial Properties Wales. Business men all over this country who have borrowed £50,000 from a bank, who have to fill in debenture forms every three months and whose companies are rigorously monitored will gawp at the fact that Johnson Matthey did no monitoring in relation to these loans.
The loan was made by way of overdraft and was on call. At no time in all those years did Johnson Matthey ask for the money back or ask for a repayment schedule. In other words, the bank handed out £1.5 million and then forgot about it. It did nothing. It provided no banking services whatsoever. This is a disgrace. It is not just negligence; it is very suspicious.
It is no wonder that the solicitors to these companies have been saying to Mr. Graham Mark and Mr. Robin Collier, "What does Mr. Hepker have over Johnson Matthey? Why do you not call in these loans?" When Johnson Matthey Bankers collapsed, the chief executive of Ravensbury Investments Ltd and the solicitors to that company wrote to Johnson Matthey saying, "Both these companies are insolvent. They have been insolvent for a long time, and there is no possibility of their ever making money. Why don't you get back your security?"
I have a file containing a bundle of the correspondence going backwards and forwards between the solicitors, the chief executive, Mr. Michael Hepker and Mr. McGregor from Johnson Matthey. Mr. Hepker has said, "Give me a fortnight and I shall stitch up a deal for you." Then he has said, "Give me another fortnight," and "Give me another fortnight." That is what I meant when I told the House that we were being taken for a ride.
At one stage, Mr. Hepker said that he would come up with another property deal. The only problem is that he would have to borrow some money to carry out that deal. What kind of negligent fantasy world is this? This point has been put to me by professional advisers to the company. In the first place, they thought, "Perhaps there are bigger and more serious cases than this £1·5 million loan from Johnson Matthey and that in the end these people at the Bank of England will deal responsibly with it." They have not dealt responsibly with it, because they have done two things. First, by not winding up the company, they have put the other creditors of the company in jeopardy. The other creditors who are owed £300,000 will never get a penny of the money that Mr. Hepker has taken. They have put them in jeopardy by not winding up the company. Secondly, there is roll-over interest on this loan and, in the end, that will increase the amount of money that the Bank of England has to write off. That money is being written off on our behalf. It is a loss not to the Bank of England but to the members of the public.
1446
I want to know how the governor of the Bank of England has justified the behaviour of his staff during the last few months.
It goes without saying that I have letters from the companies registration office showing that Mr. Hepker was in breach of section 1(7) of the Companies Act 1976 and sections 124 and 126 of the Companies Act 1948 over the production of documents. That is, however, a minor point.
What happened when the solicitors started to put pressure on Johnson Matthey to get Mr. Hepker to pay the money back? Mr. Hepker took out a curious option agreement and then tried to dismiss the solicitors and chief executive. In the middle of all that, he produced a document that showed a photostat copy of a Bank of England one pound note. I do not know what hon. Members know about criminal law, but it is illegal to photocopy Bank of England one pound notes and to produce bogus option agreements to silence solicitors. I gather that Mr. Hepker will come back to that aspect in time.
Where do we stand in relation to these matters? People have made large sums of money fraudulently and companies have gone bankrupt. There is Mr. Hepker and his company. Johnson Matthey was not performing any banking service. It was not carrying out its duty. There are also the directors of Johnson Matthey who were responsible for the preparation of the accounts. It is not the auditors but the directors who are responsible for the preparation of those accounts. The auditors merely say whether the accounts present a true and fair picture. Under section 393 of the Companies Act 1985 it is a criminal offence if a director
"knowingly or recklessly makes to a company's auditors a statement … which … is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular."
Anyone who cares to study Johnson Matthey's accounts will know that, whether or not the directors knew that they were making misleading comments, they were certainly reckless, because there is barely a statement in those accounts that has not been made recklessly. Why has not criminal action been taken against those directors who were responsible for the preparation of the accounts?
It is up to the governor of the Bank of England to decide whether he has the integrity to resign. We need an independent wide-ranging inquiry into an extraordinary act that has led to the loss of £248 million and to the public having, in effect, to put up £100 million to bail out a bank. I have taken the House into a fantasy world. It has nothing to do with banking but is about fraud and greed. If we believe that the integrity of public and private life is important, we cannot just let this matter rest. We must ensure that it is investigated ruthlessly so that all the facts are known.
11.48 am
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) has extended some of the arguments that he put forward some days ago in a brief statement. It is important for us to make it absolutely clear that the British taxpayer is likely to foot the bill not only for all the money that has already been lost and put in by the Bank of England but for other bills. It now transpires, from some of the comments made by my hon. Friend, that the bills will get even larger. As I said some days ago, the

1447
chances are that, because of the dilatory fashion in which the Chancellor and the governor of the Bank of England have acted, many of those people to whom hon. Members and the newspapers have referred are likely to get off scot free, as has happened in many other City scandals of the past two decades.
Who will pay these additional bills? Will the Economic Secretary ask the parent company what happened? Will he say, "Why did you allow your errant youngster, Johnson Matthey Bankers, to run wild and deal with all these people? Why is it that you are not taking some responsibility for these massive losses to the taxpayer?"
What about the governor of the Bank of England? Should he not be personally responsible for some of the money that has been lost and the ensuing losses that are likely to occur? My guess is that we shall not be talking about £100 million from the taxpayer; the eventual sum may be double that.
My hon. Friend referred to Mr. Fraser. Should he not bear some responsibility, instead of lumping it all on the taxpayer? I thought that this Government believed in the policy, "You make a profit or you die." I thought that they believed in market forces and entrepreneurs. What was the purpose of all the argument about closing pits, steel works and the rest of the manufacturing base? Was it not all part of the policy, "If you can't make a profit, don't come to the Government for a subsidy. Don't expect us to bail you out. You make a profit or you die"?
There are now more than 3 million unemployed people on the scrap heap. They are witnesses to the Government's policy of making a profit or going under. Yet the crooks in the City can somehow or other launder their way from one fraud to the next, getting away with it, with tax avoidance schemes, and running to Johnson Matthey Bankers and saying, "Give us some more money—at the end of the day the taxpayer will bail us out".
Will Mr. Shamji—the friend of the Prime Minister—pay some of his money back? He should. He has companies up and down the land. I discovered another that he set up not long ago in Strood. Will the Economic Secretary to the Treasury make inquiries about that? If Mr. Shamji can find his way into an enterprise zone at Strood before it is announced in Parliament, somebody must have tipped him off. He already had a derelict factory there months before the area was declared an enterprise zone on 16 November 1982. Mr. Shamji's firm is Gomba UK, and he turned up at the factory in a Rolls-Royce one day early in 1982. Did he get the money from Johnson Matthey? Is that part of the £20 million that he owes? It has been a litany of scandal from one end of the story to the other.
The British people should demand that, instead of the taxpayer being called upon to foot the bill, it should be paid by the people to whom I have referred. The British taxpayer should not be expected to bail out the Chancellor of the Exchequer for all his legal expenses. They should be paid by him or some of the culprits who have been referred to this morning.
11.52 am
Dr. Oonagh McDonald: A large number of questions remain unanswered about Johnson Matthey Bankers and the Bank of England's supervision of that bank, and the subsequent problems.
I will take one example of the bank's main debtors— Mr. Abdul Shamji's Gomba group of companies. As the Financial Times reported last Saturday, several companies
1448
in the Gomba group face court actions over debt claims and Mr. Jim Sharp, the group's financial controller, is urgently seeking a refinancing package.
Since the master company in the United Kingdom was incorporated in May 1982, companies associated with Mr. Shamji have amassed large borrowings. Accounts up to 1982 of the companies in the group show borrowings of £32·5 million. There may have been other loans from JMB since then, but without up-to-date balance sheets it is impossible to know. Accounts have not been filed in Companies House since 1982. Mr. Shamji also has loans from the Credit and Commerce International Bank, Barclays and the Punjab Bank. His assets are said to be worth about £40 million.
One of the companies, Gomba Stonefield, based at Strood, Kent, in an enterprise zone, was bought from the receiver in 1981. It ran up net losses of £2·7 million in the three years 1982–84, according to Price Waterhouse's special audit. It owed £100,000 PAYE in June, but after a threat by the Inland Revenue to auction 32 containers arid their contents, the debt was paid. It is possible that other PAYE debts are outstanding, and also that Gomba did not pay national insurance contributions and PAYE contributions for employees, now redundant, of one of his Scottish companies. Its asset base is strong but earnings of many of the companies in the group are low, suggesting low returns on assets. That could mean that Mr. Shamji now has very real problems. He will need either a refinancing package or a major programme of disposal of assets.
JMB now has problems with Gomba. The Financial Times reported last Saturday, and The Observer on Sunday, that Gomba missed the first payment under the debt rescheduling agreement, and that this still has not been paid.
With regard to loans made to Gomba by JMB, Gomba's accounts filed at Companies House go up only to 1982. What information did JMB have about the accounts of Gomba companies when loans were made? What information was made available to them then?
Is the Bank of England satisfied with the security for the loans? Gomba engages in the not unusual practice of buying property, revaluing it upwards and then borrowing against the new value. Did JMB put its own valuation on Gomba's assets. Has the Bank of England carried out its own valuation since then?
Why should companies such as Gomba Stonefield that default on payments be allowed to continue in existence when so many other companies are forced by the bank into liquidation for similar faults?
Not only Gomba's loans may be doubtful. There is a vague reference in the Bank of England's report describing four anonymous doubtful loans totalling £119 million. There was also very little information about the remaining £129 million. That makes a total of £248 million in doubtful loans, some of them very large. What action is the Bank of England taking to recover those loans? Is £248 million still the correct figure? After all, that figure was given when the Bank of England said that there was no fraud involved. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week announced a fraud investigation. What guarantee have we now that £248 million of doubtful loans is the correct figure, and that it will not continue to grow and grow with further recourse to the taxpayer?
I turn to the question of the Bank of England's supervision both then and now. Is it true that the Bank of

1449
England had, in effect, restricted its monitoring programme, before the collapse of JMB, to the clearing banks? Is it true that its supervision of the smaller banks was lax?
In the autumn we expect a White Paper proposing to give the Bank of England new powers, but it will take time for legislation to go through Parliament. May we be sure that the measures that the Government have taken so far —strengthening the banking supervision department at the Bank of England—are sufficient? Will the Minister give his assessment of those new procedures? May we be assured that there is no other JMB in the offing?
As the public have a right to know what happened with JMB, will the Minister arrange for the publication of the Price Waterhouse report? That report should, at the very least, be made available to a suitable committee, and the Minister should reconsider setting up a committee of inquiry under the 1921 Act. No doubt the Minister will recall that two days after the Prime Minister refused an inquiry in a letter to me dated 15 July the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the fraud investigation. The Prime Minister said that she could see no purpose in such an inquiry, but on the very day that the letter was written the governor of the Bank of England said that fraud was suspected. We need a thoroughgoing inquiry. Will the Minister assure us that, once the police investigations are carried out, we shall have that proper full public inquiry?
11.59 am
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): I have only a very short time in which to respond to the debate. I cannot, of course, comment on the affairs on individual customers of JMB or of any other bank. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hackney, South
1450
and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) knows that. Equally, I cannot comment on whether or not a particular person is being investigated by the Inland Revenue.
The hon. Member has produced a great deal of information about customers of JMB, much of it in the form of allegations. I should draw the attention of the House to the difference between information and allegation. If the hon. Gentleman has information that he believes to be relevant to the police inquiry, I hope and assume that he will pass it on, because it is important to follow up any available information.
My right hon. Friend's and the Treasury's response is the subject of the debate. My right hon. Friend has reported promptly and fully on matters that are his responsibility. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) welcomes the fact that he reported last week at the first opportunity.
The decision to mount the rescue operation was taken by the governor of the Bank of England on his own authority. He was acting correctly within his discretion and has since published an account of events leading up to the collapse and his reasons for undertaking the rescue. That is a reflection of the traditional relationship which exists between the governor and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a point which some hon. Members appear to have found difficult to grasp.
I have no further time to respond to the points which have been made, but I repeat that there is a considerable difference between allegation and information and between information and evidence upon which fraud can be pursued.
I hope that, having taken the opportunity of this debate to put forward those matters, the hon. Gentleman will be equally diligent in ensuring that he and any other hon. Member who has information will provide it to the police so that the police inquiry, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) asks, can be as effective as possible and can deal with all the relevant matters.

Package Holidays
12.1 pm
Mr. Michael Stern: To say that this summer the package holiday industry has been going through a bad time would be a major understatement. Having enjoyed for some years a slowly rising market, having built up its brochures each year in the expectation that that rising market will continue, and having encouraged the practice of last-minute bookings by offering substantial discounts, the tour operators were faced with not just an estimated 15 per cent. reduction in the expected market, but a substantial shift away from Spain as the preferred holiday destination. What has been regrettable about that pattern and what has occasioned me to raise the subject for debate is the fact that it is the customer who has suffered.
This season has highlighted three practices that exist within the tour operator section of the industry, all of which operate to the detriment of the holidaymaker. The first is the power of the tour operator to make material alterations to a holiday which has been booked and paid for, and to make those alterations up to the last moment before departure without infringing the regulatory code of the industry's governing body — the Association of British Travel Agents Limited. A holidaymaker may discover at the last minute that he or she is going to a different hotel, a different destination, a different resort or, in extreme cases, a different country. The only rights that the customer has are a woolly claim to compensation or the right to cancel the holiday and receive a refund, although with no holiday in prospect.
The second practice is known as consolidation. It enables tour operators to cancel flights, often with virtually no notice, to fill up other flights which have vacant seats. The holidaymaker is thus subjected to many extra hours of travelling and delay and a great deal of what can moderately be described as inconvenience at a time when the holidaymaker is paying for the reverse. Again, there is only a woolly right to compensation if the tour operator chooses to pay it, with the right to cancel and have no holiday.
The most pernicious practice occurs where a tour operator anxious to expand his share of the market puts out brochures containing flights and destinations which he must know he has no hope of fulfilling, thereby hooking the customer who can then be consolidated later onto another flight or another resort. That practice, which is known as ghosting, is known to be widespread and many people have suffered from it.
In all those cases, ABTA is powerless to prevent the abuses to which I have referred. Unless it rapidly sets its house in order, the industry will be defenceless against the major changes proposed in the EEC draft directive that we are discussing.
Since I first showed through the media my interest in this subject, I have had what can only be described as a fairly substantial postbag. To illustrate the need for rapid action, I should like to quote a few of the many cases that have been brought to my attention from all over the country.
Mr. Guthrie of Strathclyde booked a return flight from Malaga to Glasgow. He was informed at Malaga airport one hour before the flight was due to leave that it had been
1452
cancelled. He was left at the airport for 12 hours and the following morning was flown to Birmingham, which necessitated a further nine-hour journey to Glasgow.
Mrs. Purchase from Taunton booked last November to fly from Bristol to Austria on 2 June. She paid the final account on 3 April and was then informed that she would have to fly from Luton on 30 May to a different and less attractive destination.
Mr. Whiting of Leicester booked seven days in Corfu with Sunmed holidays and was told the Monday before departure that the resort had been changed. He was offered a substitute resort which was changed the following clay. He eventually ended up at inferior apartments which were already occupied.
Mr. Stevens of Wokingham booked to go to Minorca in January. He was forced by consolidation to cancel in April. He booked with Horizon and made the final payment in June. He was again forced to cancel because of consolidation and is now due to travel to Majorca with Thomson Holidays. He has his fingers crossed.
Finally, from my constituency, Mr. Penny and Miss Bartlett, who are getting married on 7 September, booked in March with Thomson Holidays to go to Benidorm from Gatwick during the early afternoon of Sunday 8 September. In June, they were offered a flight change to 7.30 am on the Sunday morning. That would have meant them leaving Bristol at 2 am on their wedding night. They were eventually offered an evening flight on the Sunday to Torremolinos from Bristol at 10.15 pm. for which it was suggested that they should be charged about £100 more.
In the light of those and many other incidents of which I have been informed, many of which were predictable and predicted at the beginning of this year, ABTA should surely by now have announced steps not just to prevent further such problems this summer, but to reorganise its members for the future, yet I understand from Mr. Kenneth Scott, the chief executive officer of Ilkeston Consumer Co-operative Society Limited, who has done considerable research into this problem, that while it is generally accepted that next winter's holiday market might increase by about 10 per cent., Thomson Ski has increased its advertised programme by 33 per cent. and Horizon by 20 per cent.
The problem is not peculiar to this country because, according to a survey by the EEC Commission, out of the 25 million holidaymakers in Europe this summer, approximately 6 million—24 per cent. —will face some disappointment.
If this summer's chaos had been wholly unexpected, and if the need to tighten the package holiday industry's rules to protect the consumer had been sprung on the industry at the last minute, ABTA's inaction in doing no more than enforce its existing code could have been understood. However, the appalling position of bookings for this summer was known in January and many companies faced with the eventual need to consolidate their flights did such consolidations in the early months of the year, and so enabled their customers to have adequate time to rearrange their holidays.
In addition, it was known towards the end of last year that the holiday places available and being offered by ABTA members for this summer exceeded the maximum possible market by anything between 25 and 33 per cent. The proposed EEC directive further to regulate the industry for the benefit of the holidaymaker has been

1453
around since at least January this year, but it has never once, to the best of my knowledge, been opened by ABTA for public discussion.
In those circumstances, it is not surprising that the EEC Commission has felt the need to step in and propose a draft directive to improve the regulations of an industry which has, by this summer's experience and this winter's prospective experience, showed itself at least insensitive to the desires of its customers.
The proposals in the draft directive are, in many respects, draconian. As a result, while my hon. Friend the Minister may feel, with considerable justification, that the directive as a whole is inappropriate, I hope that he will still look at some of the provisions contained in it with a view to encouraging the industry to adopt them on a voluntary basis.
For example, article 6(2)(m) of the draft directive calls for the automatic disclosure to the customer of the name and address of the local representative of the tour organiser. Such information would be, and would have been, very welcome to many holidaymakers. It is not a requirement of the present ABTA code.
Article 10(1)(c) provides that the holidaymaker is entitled to cancel and obtain a refund if the holiday is modified significantly—a provision that already exists under the ABTA code—but says that the definition of a significant modification is to be resolved by reference, in part, to the holidaymaker's view of what is significant. So the holidaymaker should have a say in whether or not he is entitled to be protected under the ABTA code—and on that the code is silent.
Article 10(4) provides that, on cancellation of a holiday, the holidaymaker should also be entitled to damages for the loss of his holiday, whereas under the present code he is entitled merely to a refund. Article 5 provides that a deposit on a package holiday should not be more than 10 per cent. of the whole price, again a matter on which the ABTA code is silent.
It cannot be said that there is no precedent in Europe for the package holiday industry to be subject to statutory regulation where all else fails. Draft legislation currently going through the Netherlands Parliament proposes entitlement to damages similar to that contained in the draft EEC directive—something that is already believed to exist in the United States. In addition, the draft Netherlands legislation suggests that all contracts between travel agents and tour operators should be open to public inspection in certain circumstances — a proposal that would flutter a few dovecotes in the travel industry. I understand that the Bill has reached the equivalent of Report stage in the Netherlands Parliament, and is therefore close to the statute book.
Apart from the proposals in the directive or in the proposed new Netherlands law, there are other ways in which the holidaymaker could receive greater protection. I cannot see any reason why, if a customer is obliged to pay the full price for a holiday eight weeks before departure, he should not then be guaranteed that he will get the holiday for which he is paying. Indeed, it would take a great deal of heat out of the issue if ABTA were to announce—and I invite it to do so—that no further consolidations would be put into effect by its members unless they are advertised to their customers within the next seven days.
1454
I appreciate that in that area ABTA has considerable difficulty in self-regulation because it is a body containing, almost in equal measure, two entirely different interests —the travel agents who genuinely want their customers protected and want to retain their customers' goodwill, and the tour operators who want to preserve the maximum freedom of action. Nevertheless, ABTA should be aware that, if it does not set its house in order, more stringent provisions of the sort that I have been discussing will become inevitable.
In view of the publicity that the media have rightly given to the issue already this summer, and in view of the size of my postbag, it is worth putting it on record that this summer many tour operators have adopted an entirely reasonable and responsible attitude to their customers. They have not stuffed their brochures with holidays that they could not possibly sell in sufficient quantities. They have taken adequate care and availed themselves of adequate local knowledge to prevent many overbookings at resorts. Where consolidations or material alterations in holidays have been necessary, they have given their customers ample time to reconsider.
The horrors that I have been describing, the horrors that we have heard of in the media, are not the fault of the whole of the industry, but unfortunately many companies within the industry have not taken the attitude that I have just described. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will impress upon the industry that it is the actions of the latter companies — some of which I have mentioned — that have created the need for EEC legislation to be considered, at least. Similar actions in the Netherlands have created a similar need there. Such actions will continue to feed the need unless the industry puts its house in order and thereby renders an EEC directive unnecessary.
12.15 pm
The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) for bringing the subject of consolidation to the attention of the House. I can well understand the disappointment experienced by travellers who find themselves consolidated at the very last minute. My hon. Friend cited some interesting and sad case histories from his postbag.
My hon. Friend's recommendations are good. I know that the travel industry will be grateful for his constructive approach in the debate, and especially for his remarks complimenting the vast proportion of operators on their responsible approach to the problem. However, if the practices that my hon. Friend described continue, the Government will find it difficult to resist any action proposed by the European Commission. I must point out that no proposals for a directive on package holidays have yet been made to the Council of Ministers by the Commission. However, I believe that the Commission does intend to make a proposal for a directive on package holidays later this year. Until the Government see this proposal, the House will understand that it is difficult for me and the Government to comment on it.
However, the Commission has held meetings of both national experts and the Consumer Consultative Committee to discuss possible draft articles, which might form a draft directive broadly aimed at harmonising that legislation within the Community which affords consumer protection to people taking package holidays. It is to these preliminary draft articles that my hon. Friend referred.

1455
Despite the fact that most member states in the Community do not see the need for such a draft directive, either from a consumer protection view point or as an instrument to stimulate tourism between member states, the Commission still intends, I believe, to submit a revised proposal to the Council of Ministers. Although we have not seen any revised proposal from the Commission, I understand that the current draft would have wide implications for United Kingdom law and practice on package holidays.
European Community legislation has all too frequently been thought by some to be the answer to consumer problems in many areas. I am not convinced that this is the case. The Government firmly believe that the interests of consumers, whether on a package holiday or not, are not served by increasingly rigid legislative controls on the providers of goods and services. Most problems, including any associated with package holidays, are better dealt with at a national level and often the answer lies not in legislation but in effective voluntary, self-regulatory action by the trade involved. Package holidays are a good example of where a voluntary code of practice can and should achieve a high level of consumer protection.
My hon. Friend was accurate, as he invariably is, in reminding the House of the potential conflicts of interest within ABTA. Nevertheless, the ABTA codes of practice, which were drawn up in consultation with the Office of Fair Trading, prescribe rules to be observed by its members, both tour operators and travel agents, in those areas such as descriptions of holidays, booking conditions, alterations, cancellations and price variations, to which my hon. Friend referred in particular. These codes are binding on all ABTA members, who may be fined or expelled for non-compliance. My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that ABTA members account for the vast majority of package holidays from the United Kingdom.
Provision is also made in the codes of arbitration and conciliation procedures in the event of a dispute between a member and a customer. Although over 7 million package tours were taken last year, ABTA reported that, of the 9,683 complaints dealt with by its conciliation department, only 418 went as far as arbitration. This level of complaints is far lower than that found by the EC Commission in its survey. I might add that many member states disagreed with the findings of the EC survey. The Office of Fair Trading periodically monitors the codes and I understand that the office is currently in the process of doing this.
These codes, coupled with the protection afforded to package holidaymakers by bonding and insurance schemes, mean that the protection offered or available in the travel trade is greater than that in many other sectors.
Consolidations, the practice whereby tour operators, through lack of demand for a particular package tour, may have to transfer travellers to another flight, perhaps from a different airport, have, as my hon. Friend said, been the subject of considerable comment recently. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State responsible for corporate and consumer affairs, when answering a question yesterday on this subject from the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), explained that the Office of Fair Trading will include the question of the consolidations of holiday
1456
arrangements in its monitoring of all aspects of ABTA's code of practice. The office has expressed its concern to ABTA about the reported volume of consolidations this year and has asked the association to inform the office of what action it intends to take to deal with this problem. I am confident that we can look to ABTA to continue to enforce its members' adherence to their codes of practice. Already, I am aware that members of ABTA have been fined for breaches of the code.
Some people have argued for legislation to prohibit consolidation, but that is not the answer. The travel trade already has the means to regulate its own behaviour, so that the service it provides is acceptable to its customers. An overall ban on consolidation would no doubt lead to an unacceptable increase in the prices of package tours, so placing them beyond the reach of many people.
Apart from the ABTA codes of practice, the consumer also has the protection of the law. Although in the United Kingdom there are no laws which specifically and exclusively govern rights and duties between consumers and the providers of package holidays in particular, the basic legal position is primarily governed by the ordinary, general law of contract and, in some circumstances, by the law of tort. In both cases the law is based on common law and equitable principles developed over a long period by judicial decisions and modified from time to time by statutory provisions. In both cases, it is open to a parry who has suffered loss or damage through breach of contract or other act or omission to seek redress, usually in the form of financial compensation, in the civil courts, although some statutes impose criminal penalties on the wrongdoer.
One of the most important statutory provisions is the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. This Act, in England and Wales, specifies implied terms embodying the respective rights of providers of goods and services and consumers, extending many long-standing provisions relating to the sale of goods to the provision of services. Providers of services, who include tour operators and travel agents, have an obligation to do so with reasonable care and skill, within a reasonable time and for a reasonable charge. Redress for aggrieved consumers is by civil proceedings for damages.
Perhaps I may return to the draft European Commission proposals. When the Commission puts its final proposals for a directive on package holidays to the Council, the document will be available to all member states. When these proposals are received, the Government will of course provide a copy to the House together with an explanatory memorandum. My hon. Friend gave a detailed analysis of the various proposed clauses he has studied, centring in particular on entitlement to damages. It was helpful to hear his comments about the proposed Netherlands law.
The Government will also consult all other interested parties, including representatives of both holidaymakers and the travel trade, about the implications of the proposal. Meanwhile, both the Government and the Office of Fair Trading will continue to look to ABTA effectively to control any practices by its menbers which are detrimemtal to the holidaymaker.

Blackmill Hospital, Ogmore
12.28 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: I am grateful for the allocation of time during the last sitting before the summer recess to place on record the objections of my constituents in Ogmore and other people in the catchment areas of Aberavon, Bridgend, Pontypridd, and the Vale of Glamorgan, all of whom will be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed closure of Blackmill hospital in the Ogmore valley.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for my speech. Blackmill hospital is on the side of the Ogmore valley near the small and delightful hamlet of Blackmill. It overlooks a beautiful area and a picturesque valley covered with trees at one end, and the area spreads out into well maintained sheep farms and grazing areas. The valley starts from Nantymoel and stretches through narrow terraced streets through Tynewydd and down to Blackmill. It is one of four similar valleys in my constituency. Access is mostly by secondary roads, which are convenient and of the sort that one would expect to find in the coalmining area of south Wales.
It is well known throughout the world that the Welsh people are friendly, hospitable and responsive and treat their visitors as members of the family, and their qualities of compassion and care are of a high degree. Against that background and description of the area, all those who will read the debate will realise why it is essential to make every effort to save Blackmill hospital for the service that it provides, for the people it serves and in recognition of the wonderful work and dedication of all the staff for the people they nurse.
Blackmill hospital is renowned throughout Mid-Glamorgan and the Principality of Wales and, I suspect, even further afield. Elderly people are nursed by relatives —sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters—and in some instances by neighbours. We all know what is entailed in the nursing of elderly people, and those who do it welcome the respite of a week or fortnight or even longer when their elderly charges are allowed to go to Blackmill hospital and the home nurse can have a holiday.
This social facility is essential. There is a real community need. There is an overwhelming demand and that becomes clear as one reads the statistics for Mid-Glamorgan about the increased number of elderly people. The problem is on the increase and, instead of reducing these facilities, we should be increasing them. We should be developing more Blackmill hospitals and not reducing this vital social facility.
I catalogue all the facts so that everyone, including the Minister, will realise the extent of the feeling and concern and the real rebellion among thousands of my constiuents over the decision to close this hospital. The way to describe this feeling is to compare it with the rebellion this week of 100 Tory Members against the Government's proposals to increase top salaries. We all know the extent of that rebellion, and I claim that my constituents are equally concerned about this hospital closure, if not more so.
Over the years the Minister and I have on many occasions expressed our opinions and debated general hospital services in Mid-Glamorgan. The Official Report could be referred to repeatedly from 1979 onwards. However, I feel that no mileage can be gained from that.
1458
I also have with me the draft consultative document on health services in Mid-Glamorgan published in March 1984. This strategic plan for 1984 to 1993, containing 137 pages, would be ideal ammunition for an all-night sitting of a Committee, but it would not be ideal for today's debate.
However, I must refer to the March 1984 document on the reorganisation of the health services in Ogwr. It was published as a draft consultative document, but, despite many meetings convened by the Ogwr community council all over the borough and the objections to closures from Mid-Glamorgan county, Ogwr borough, 23 community councils and a petition containing 9,937 signatures, the whole planned closure programme will be implemented if the Government are not prepared to relent on their decision to close Blackmill hospital. Surely the significance of this amount of protest will not go unrecognised by the Government.
No doubt the Minister will recall the Adjournment debate on the subject of Bridgend hospital on 22 March 1982—it is now called the Princess of Wales hospital. Hon. Members will find the report of that debate in Hansard of 22 March 1982, at columns 771–78. I ask the Minister to read his reply to that debate and his answer to an oral question on 27 June 1983 on phase 2 of the new hospital.
It is all to do with the closure of many hospitals in Ogwr borough—and the loss of beds, not the increase in accommodation—when waiting lists are getting longer and the elderly are living longer. If I had not secured this debate today I should have been attending a birthday celebration for Mr. Arthur Beaty, in Dwfrig ward at Maesgwyn hospital, Brynceithin, who is celebrating his 100th birthday today. I am sure that the House will want to record its birthday greetings to him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Yesterday, I read through three full files of letters and reports dealing only with Blackmill hospital and the work of the hospital league of friends under the chairmanship and stewardship of Councillor Mrs. Muriel Williams, MBE, JP. I was overwhelmed by the public response to fund-raising efforts to provide for the hospital so many extra facilities and needs not usually available from any other source. I commend Mrs. Williams and her committee for all their untiring efforts. Only last week my wife opened the league's summer fete, which raised well over £500 in one afternoon and was supported by hundreds of the valley's residents.
To view objectively the proposals to close Blackmill hospital, one has to consider the historical background and the significance of the hospital to the community that it serves. The hospital was built in 1903 by the Ogmore and Garw council for the treatment and nursing of infectious diseases. Until 1948 it was used mainly for this purpose, treating outbreaks of infectious diseases such as measles, whooping cough, chicken pox, scarlet fever and many others. An improved programme of immunisation and vaccination, coupled with advanced medical treatment for prevention, resulted in a fall in bed occupancy at the hospital. To improve occupancy, a pre-convalescent ward was established.
I should like to place on record my appreciation of the work of the Ogwr community health council — Chris Johnston, the Secretary, Megan Butcher, last year's chairman, and Jack Thomas, the present chairman, —and the efficent and constructive way they organized

1459
public meetings and a petition which carried 10,000 signatures. I object to the contemptuous way in which they have been treated by the health service's planning officer, Mr. D. M. Chapple. They were not kept fully informed of Welsh Office decisions.
I should like to read a letter dealing with a series of Welsh Office decisions which was sent to Mr. Boulton, the general manager of the Mid-Glamorgan health authority. It said:
"In my letter of 7 May I informed you that the Secretary of State has approved the first part of your proposals for the reorganisation of health services in Ogwr. The purpose of this letter is to tell you that he also accepts as part of that reorganisation your proposal to close Blackmill Hospital.
The hospital is obviously held in affection by many people in the area and the Secretary of State fully appreciates the regard in which the hospital is held and understands the feelings of those people in the community who have expressed concern at its future. In particular he was impressed by the sincerity of the Friends of Blackmill Hospital who presented officials with a petition to keep the Hospital open.
He has concluded nevertheless that the reorganisation of health services which your Authority has proposed are in the best interests of all the people in Ogwr."
The penultimate paragraph is the most important:
"The Secretary of State has noted that the Health Authority would prefer not to dispose of the site immediately, in order to allow further exploration of the potential for its reuse in the local interest. The Secretary of State, having noted the strong local affection for Blackmill Hospital, is agreeable to a delay in disposal, but being conscious of the cost of maintaining the site in a reasonable condition after closure, encourages the Health Authority to have concluded its considerations by 1 November 1985."
Earlier today the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), was congratulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) on his 40 years' service to this House and to the nation. I urge hon. Members to read his article in today's edition of The Times and to reflect upon the achievements of the Labour Government of 1945. The Nye Bevans of this world, and others, fought long and hard to introduce the National Health Service. It is our duty and responsibility to protect this national asset and prevent the privatisation of medical care. Private medical care is escalating because American-based firms are falling over themselves to cash in on this gravy train.
Are the Government reducing the role of the National Health Service? Do they intend to provide only a substandard service for those who cannot find the cash to pay for private care? We will not tolerate this any further. We shall not allow these uncaring, unscrupulous monetarists to smash the National Health Service, as they have been trying to do since 1979. In June 1983 the Prime Minister said that the National Health Service was safe in her hands. Not only the Opposition but also, I believe, many Conservative Members doubt this.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary is not included in the real hard core of those whom I have just criticised. Therefore, I ask him to show a little compassion and to consider the proposal to salvage at least one hospital from the slaughter of the services that I have outlined by the area health authority. I ask him to consider the decision of the area health authority on 22 July 1985,
"that before taking steps to dispose of Blackmill Hospital and site they would look favourably at any constructive and feasible proposition to retain the hospital for the benefit of the community if such proposals were to be presented to them. The Secretary of State has allowed until November 1985 for such propositions to be presented to the Authority."
1460
May I suggest to the Minister two areas which might be suitable for the undertaking of a feasibility study for the future use of hospital facilities by a local charitable organisation, which would be much-needed community projects. First, one ward could be converted into a flexible day care centre for the elderly. The advantages of such a centre would be to allow greater use of the facility and allow patients to remain in care for longer periods. Secondly, it could use another ward to provide a short-stay holiday home unit for the elderly. If such a short-stay unit were provided, it would go a long way towards allowing relatives some respite for a week or two and would encourage them to accept their family responsibilities. If the proposals were accepted by the health authority and the social services department, referrals could be agreed and funded by the DHSS. I am sure that my proposals would mean that the costings of Blackmill hospital for the year ended 13 March 1984 could be substantially reduced.
Last, but not least, the child welfare clinic, the chiropody clinic and other community-based functions are sited at the hospital. They were sited at the hospital because alternative accommodation was not available in the area. Those functions could be retained at the hospital. This local charitable organisation would be able to make repairs and renovations of a high standard without the liability of unreasonable cost.
Finally, may I ask the Minister to give some help to the socially and industrially deprived area of Ogmore by at least allowing this community-based charitable organisation to continue the essential work of Blackmill hospital. If he will do that, I shall willingly and eagerly wish him a pleasant and restful summer recess.
12.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I am happy to join the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) in sending good wishes to his constituent, Mr. Arthur Beaty, on his 100th birthday. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) on his 40 years' service to the House.
The House will be aware that the procedures relating to a hospital closure provide ample opportunity for up-to-date consideration of the proposal for change and of any viable alternatives. They applied in the Blackmill case. I must dissent from the hon. Gentleman and assert that we have noted local feeling, but the weight of reasoned argument on service needs must also be weighed. In this case, the balance lies in favour of the authority's proposal.
Blackmill hospital is a unit of 30 beds. In recent years it has provided a pre-convalescent facility, generally for elderly people, some of whom move on to other accommodation. As the hon. Gentleman said, the buildings date from 1903 and occupy a site of about two acres. No beds are designated for consultant supervision. Patients are supervised by general practitioners. Additionally, the hospital is formally described as an isolation facility for infectious diseases.
The health authority wishes to close Blackmill hospital, which costs about £250,000 a year to run. It judges that this revenue could most usefully be transferred as a contribution to the running costs of a reorganised service for Ogwr district, which includes comprehensive care of the elderly. Provision for the elderly would then make appropriate use of the Bridgend general and Maesgwyn hospitals, which are both near the new Princess of Wales

1461
hospital, which is just being commissioned. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say, the fact is that the reorganisation will provide more beds for the elderly than are presently available. Therefore, it is not true to say that we and the health authority are reducing the number of beds available for the elderly.
The health authority has been thinking about the future of Blackmill hospital for some time. Its first consultative document on the proposed reorganisation of hospital services in the Ogwr health district was issued in July 1979. It drew a significant response during public consultation and the authority duly decided to delay making any firm decisions until much nearer the opening of the new Princess of Wales district general hospital.
I am sure that that approach was right, because the new Princess of Wales hospital at Bridgend will form the focal point of very substantially improved health services for the people of Ogwr. When it opens in October of this year, the new hospital will provide the most modern forms of health treatment. In many respects it will be second to none in Wales. Indeed, extra funds made available by the Welsh Office to the Mid-Glamorgan health authority reflect our strong desire to secure such major improvements in health care
At one point, the Mid-Glamorgan health authority expressed concern that existing guidance on cost allowances for a hospital of the size of the Princess of Wales did not fully recognise the special needs of the district. There was some feeling that this guidance would not permit the introduction of the most recent technological advances. However, I am happy to say that we were able to provide the required funding to satisfy the overall requirements at the new hospital. More than £6 million has been provided for up-to-date equipment items, and an extra allocation of just under £4.8 million recurring revenue moneys has been added to the health authority's allocation especially for the new district general hospital.
All of this is additional to money for the capital development, costing in excess of £13 million, so our commitment to funding the health services in Ogwr should be crystal clear and unmistakeable. But I want to say something in a little more detail about the effect that this multi-million pound investment will have upon the actual health services provided to the people of Ogwr. It is this that has conditioned the authority's approach to the future of Blackmill hospital.
It is axiomatic that services for the elderly should be provided on the soundest possible basis. The development of services for the elderly is given priority attention by my Department. Among other things, health authorities are required to reinvest "good management" efficiency savings amounting to 0.5 per cent. of their revenue allocations for the priority groups of elderly, mentally handicapped and mentally ill people, who are among the most vulnerable in our society.
In this case, I believe that the reorganised health services proposed for Ogwr are likely to be of real benefit to elderly people in the community over and above the services available already. The needs of the elderly in hospital do not just demand concentrated medical and nursing care. There is also a requirement for a range of other specialised services. We look for significant improvement in this area, because, without it, and without the well-judged service intervention that they can provide,
1462
elderly people would otherwise be unable to retain their health, their independence and thus the society of their family and friends. These specialised facilities are precisely those that are available at a general hospital and are unlikely to be available elsewhere.
In saying that I certainly do not mean to disparage the work of the staff at Blackmill hospital. Their devotion to their patients is widely known locally and very well appreciated. However, there can be no doubt that the facilities being made available at Bridgend general hospital, Quarella road, as well as in the associated Maesgwyn hospital, are both superior in themselves and capable of meeting the total needs of the area in a way that Blackmill cannot.
That said, we have agreed with a suggestion from the Mid-Glamorgan health authority that any alternative proposal for the use of the resource represented by Blackmill should be given very careful consideration before any decision is taken on disposal of the hospital site. We fully recognise the great affection which the local community has for the hospital, and we are conscious of the excellent voluntary support that it has received. There is no intention to overlook the service that either has been or could be provided to the elderly at Blackmill. But it is up to the authority to see whether local initiative could support the development of a viable plan for some further future use. I am sure that it will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the ideas that he has presented this morning and that it will consider what he has had to say.
The closure of Blackmill will, of course, have consequences for the pattern of service provision generally within the area. For example, general practitioner services are themselves very significant in providing a primary health care service for the elderly. Here, it is the intention that general practitioner beds should be located near to the diagnostic and treatment facilities at Bridgend. This cannot but have a positive influence on the effectiveness of the GP services.
Again, the treatment of infectious diseases will also be subject to reorganisation. When the Blackmill hospital was originally built by the Ogmore and Garw council it was for the care of patients suffering with infectious diseases. Since then there has been a massive decline in the incidence and severity of these diseases to such an extent that a major isolation facility is no longer necessary. The new Princess of Wales hospital has itself been planned to enable the proper treatment of infectious diseases to be undertaken.
It may be said that, despite the care with which the Mid-Glamorgan health authority has planned and consulted, the new arrangements for the whole of Ogwr, which themselves imply the closure of Blackmill, should still not go ahead. It may be said that the 30 beds and Blackmill hospital should be retained. In that event, the further development at Bridgend general hospital about which I have spoken would have to be materially revised. Retention of Blackmill would mean that the resources expended on it would not be available for use elsewhere in Ogwr. This would affect the area plan, and some element of the intended provision for the elderly —planned to be in the region of 120 beds at Bridgend—would have to be omitted to balance the supply against likely demand. By retaining a relatively isolated GP unit, the planned capacity to provide comprehensive care for the

1463
elderly would be limited. Proposals for providing GP access to major diagnostic facilities and other specialist support at Bridgend general would be affected adversely.
It is difficult to see how any authority could justify having such beds in isolation from major support and acute specialties and outpatient services. Nor do I think that even the most ardent supporter of the notion of retaining Blackmill hospital would suggest that such a GP service at Blackmill should actually be replaced at Bridgend. Moreover, there are clear advantages of maintaining beds for the elderly in the most central and accessible location in relation to population. Bridgend general meets this requirement far more effectively than does Blackmill.
Again, so far as beds for the elderly in general are concerned, there must be doubt that Blackmill hospital could possibly hope to offer a service to elderly people of Ogwr superior to that proposed for the new Bridgend general and Maesgwyn hospital. The whole concept of the care envisaged for the elderly in Ogwr is to create a large number of beds in Bridgend with immediate access to major diagnostic and rehabilitative facilities. I make no apology in supporting Mid-Glamorgan health authority in working towards positive patterns of care for the elderly and for Ogwr as a whole. The most fruitful way ahead can only be charted by developing facilities around the Princess of Wales hospital.
I know that some of the few elderly people cared for at Blackmill hospital will initially be concerned at the thought of moving to an alternative location. It will of course be up to the health authority to ensure that this is managed with the care and sensitivity that we have come to expect from staff at Blackmill. Patients will fortunately not be asked to move great distances. Bridgend is only four and a half miles away and Maesgwyn hospital is only three miles away. At either place the distance from close relatives and friends will not differ substantially from that which exists now. They will be assured that all modern techniques available for their treatment and well-being would be close at hand.
All these developments in Ogwr take place against a resource background which Labour Members consistently refuse to recognise and occasionally misrepresent. As I have said many times in the House, and elsewhere, the Health Service in Wales has enjoyed a 16·3 per cent. increase in available growth resources between 1979–80 and 1985–86. This is after taking account of the effects of inflation, and 1983 public expenditure reductions. It is this very growth that has enabled authorities like Mid-Glamorgan to begin to address the problems of old and relatively expensive facilities, and to begin the business of moving to more modern and effective ones.
I do not say that these adjustments can be made easily. They demand great sensitivity, careful planning and considerable thought. There are hard choices to be made, but they cannot be avoided. On any objective standard the improvement in performance across the whole Health Service in Wales since 1979 is striking. Many more patient cases are being dealt with quickly and with a greater range of treatments than ever before, but it will not be possible for authorities like Mid-Glamorgan to continue to enhance their performance—to tackle the problems that confront the service — if scarce resources are used in running facilities that are relatively ineffective in cost and service terms. To cavil at this is simply to close one's eyes to the
1464
realities of Health Service planning and resource needs. We cannot take a relaxed view of any arrangement that uses resources ineffectively and thus diverts them from more and better patient care, particularly when modern, improved and accessible services are available
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I very well recognise that the pressures on the funds that he has made available to the district health authorities are always strong. They are caused, for example, by new technologies and new methods of treatment as well as by pay increases. On this last point I will only say that these have been discussed at the recent round of annual reviews conducted by the executive committee of the health policy board within our Department.
There will be an opportunity for further discussion during the course of today when chairmen have one of their occasional meetings with the Secretary of Stale. Naturally, I cannot anticipate the course of this discussion, or indeed the Secretary of State's decisions as regards funding for 1986–87. What I will say is that we look to health authorities to continue to take effective measures to get the best value for money in the interests of patient care. I cannot imagine that anyone who works in the NHS would want to side-step that imperative. It is essential to the future of the service overall.
I do not in any way discount the financial and other problems of transition that Mid-Glamorgan faces. They confront all authorities to some degree. As things stand, Mid-Glamorgan has benefited from significant growth in its discretionary revenue resources in recent years. Moreover, additional cash loans of some £3 million in 1984–85 and £2·2 million in 1985–86 have been made to help the authority, which has also benefited from special central funding for particular service developments. We are also assisting a consultancy study designed to help the authority to manage the way ahead.
All of this is in support of the considerable efforts made by the authority over recent years to tackle the problems with which it is confronted. It is important to see the future of services for the elderly in Ogwr, and indeed the decision in respect of Blackmill hospital, in that context.
I do not believe that Mid-Glamorgan will be assisted in its effort—which will be to the long-term benefit of all those served by the authority—if every well-founded proposal for change is characterised as "cutting" health services, when in fact such changes represent further significant improvements in patient care. That can only reduce public confidence in the credibility of the service for both the present and the future—to the detriment of patients and the dedicated staff who work in the service.
I conclude by returning to the work of the staff at Blackmill hospital. I am sure that they will help in making the transitional period implicit in the transfer of services to a new location as smooth as possible. The staff's reputation for care gives me the strongest possible hope that the transition will be managed well.
I also acknowledge the work done by individual members of the local community and members of voluntary groups that have taken an interest in Blackmill over the years and the considerable support that they have given to the hospital. I hope that that goodwill will find its proper outlet in the facilities at Bridgend and elsewhere in Ogwr.

Southampton Economic Development Corporation
1 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: I welcome the opportunity to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to a sinister new development in local government—the abuse of companies limited by guarantee. The creation of such companies is often no more than a fraudulent sham and the use to which they can be put is grossly anti-democratic, an outrageous abuse of ratepayers' funds and a recipe for corruption on a massive scale. As not only ratepayers' but taxpayers' money is being siphoned into these companies, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary shares my anxiety.
I shall illustrate the argument by referring to the recent establishment by Southampton city council of a company limited by guarantee, the Southampton Economic Development Corporation, which was incorporated on 20 March this year and has the widest possible terms in its memorandum of association. The report submitted to the city council said:
"A company which carries on an activity not permitted by its memorandum will be acting ultra vires and that activity will be void. It is therefore important that the memorandum must be drafted in the widest possible terms to enable a company to carry on any activity which it might wish to do in the future."
The objects of SEDCO enable it to do anything calculated to assist and promote the economic, scientific, technological and social development of Southampton; to carry on research; to stage conferences, exhibitions or plays and to provide leisure activities and amenities; to deal in property; to invest, borrow and deal with money and to take shares in other companies. The city secretary reported that that was not an exhaustive list of the company's powers and that there was also a blanket clause enabling the company to carry on any activity that is deemed to be incidental, necessary, expedient or conducive to its other specified powers.
Therefore, Southampton Economic Development Corporation has powers that are far wider and more extensive than those of the city council itself. However, unlike the city council, the economic development corporation is devoid of public accountability. Its members and directors are appointed by the city council, but need not be elected members of that council. Once appointed, they are accountable to the company and not to the public.
The public and press are denied access to agendas, supporting papers and minutes, thereby being denied all the public safeguards in the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.
The company board meets in private and, most sinister of all, councillors who are not on the board are denied access to information. Board members may be paid fees and the board may be so constituted that minority parties on the city council are not represented on it.
Although directors are governed by company legislation and the company must keep accounts and make and file an annual return, the controls on members of the board are a far cry from open accountability to the electorate and the public. Yet the company is wholly dependent on public funds or the guarantee of such funds.
Within a few days of incorporation, Southampton Economic Development Corporation was given £450,000
1466
by the council. The payment was made under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, which enables local authorities to spend up to the product of a 2p rate.
The product of a 2p rate in Southampton is almost £700,000, but by the end of the last financial year only £250,000 had been spent. The remainder, instead of being returned to the ratepayers, was siphoned into the new company. All that the public know is that the money was invested on behalf of the company on 29 March, the day on which it was transferred. From now on, the ratepayers of Southampton have no control over the way in which that money is spent.
Not content with a mere £450,000, the directors of the company immediately started investigating ways in which millions of pounds could be produced for the company. The ingenious and sinister proposal that was considered was a back-to-back loan by which the company would borrow up to £3 million from a bank on the basis that the city council would deposit an equivalent sum with that bank. In that way, the council would not be deemed to be spending money, but would potentially be liable to use the money to meet the company's debts under the guarantee. Meanwhile, the company, meeting in secret, would be able to spend millions of pounds as it wanted.
The sham nature of that proposal is clear from a report to the directors that was given by Mr. Grey, who is not only a director of the company but the treasurer of the city council. The first sentence of his report reads:
"When considering the ways in which the City Council could provide funds for SEDCO, it was clearly important to bear in mind the limitations imposed by Statute and by Government regulations."
It may be apparent from that sentence that Mr. Grey was finding it difficult to separate his responsibilities as treasurer of the city council from the role which he was apparently playing at the time of making his report, that of a director of the corporation. Mr. Grey continued:
"If the revenue reserve for capital purposes of the Council continues to be the sole source of finance for this company, the present City Council policies, if maintained, would ensure that funds would be available for four to five years at the rate of £350,000 a year."
That was not enough, apparently, for the directors of the company. They wanted to consider alternative provision, and the city treasurer reported that he had conducted negotiations with two banks, Hambros and the Trustee Savings bank, and said that, in consideration of an investment by the council in the bank, the bank would make a loan to the Southampton Economic Development Corporation. He said in his report to the board of directors:
"An arrangement of this sort ensures that there is no direct link between the two transactions, the bank loan to SEDCO and the City Council's investment with the bank, both being in the normal course of business."
In my submission, that was nothing more than a sham, because it was clear that the bank would lend money to the corporation only if the city council agreed to deposit money with that bank, so giving a sort of back-to-back arrangement.
The report to the corporation went on to point out the costs of such loans. It said that the interest would be £130,000 a year for each £1 million borrowed. In other words, it would be up to £390,000. It went on:
"It is extremely unlikely that interest commitments will be met in the early years of operation, and the City Council will, therefore, need to act as a guarantor. In addition, provision will need to be made for repayment of the loan principal."
Mr. Grey said that the Hambros offer would cause little difficulty, because the loan would not fall due until the end

1467
of the seven-year loan period. That was, of course, a long way ahead for those currently running the council, although it would be a potential millstone around the necks of Southampton's ratepayers.
At the end of his quite long report, Mr. Grey told the directors:
"On balance, I would suggest that taking a loan at the present time is premature."
One of the directors on the board was a Conservative councillor, Mike Andrews, an accountant. He thought that what was being proposed was of dubious legality, and he expressed the intention to vote against the proposal at the board meeting. He said that he would point out to the bank which was thinking of entering into this back-to-back arrangement that it might be entering into a matter of doubtful legality.
Within 24 hours, the city council decided that Councillor Andrews should be dismissed from the board. A special agenda item referred to using the powers in the Local Government Act to deal with a matter of "extreme urgency". The mayor stated:
"It has been brought to my attention by the leader of the council"—
I do not know where that leaves the question of confidentiality, because it appears that the leader of the council, who is a member of SEDCO's board, is free to discuss matters that take place at board meetings with his Socialist colleagues outside, but can criticise someone who is not a member of the Socialist party if he acts similarly.
The mayor went on:
"Councillor Andrews who is a council appointed director of this corporation has indicated his intention to take action by writing to certain banking organisations on lines which could detrimentally affect the board's ability to satisfactorily progress negotiations. This action, if carried through, could be construed as directly incompatible with continued membership of the board of directors."
The mayor said that he thought that the matter should be dealt with without delay. As a result, the council on which the Socialists have a majority voted to dismiss Councillor Andrews from the board. That meant that one of the two Conservative councillors who had been elected to the board was dismissed.
The corporation is so rotten that it appears that anyone who wishes to scrutinise what happens is likely to lose his position on the board. It is possible that no minority party representative will be allowed to serve on the board unless he agrees to be a silent stooge and cipher for the Socialists. As with all authoritarian and undemocratic councils, the voice of a minority is left with the expensive option of litigation in which the opponents will be funded by the ratepayers and the public purse.
The officers of the council are involved as directors of SEDCO. They are being put into an invidious position. The city treasurer owes a fiduciary duty to the ratepayers in his own right and, as an employee of the local authority, he should give his working time and undivided allegiance to that authority. What is he to do when conflicts of interest and duty arise? How can he remain, and be seen to remain, impartial, objective, politically neutral and professionally independent? It seems that pressure was imposed to make him agree to enter into a £3 million loan, despite his reservations. It has been suggested that another council officer has been faced with pressure to doctor the minutes of the board meeting to avoid potential embarrassment to the leader of the Socialist city council.
1468
It seems that nothing can prevent the corporation from incurring liabilities of countless millions of pounds which ratepayers will have to meet in the future. Short of rate capping, there is no limited liability for ratepayers. They are rather like names at Lloyd's: they will have to pay up, if called upon to do so, in relation to bad decisions over which they have no control.
In the limited time available, I cannot go into the temptation of corruption to which directors of such companies limited by guarantee may be exposed. Money taken through the rates from commercial and residential ratepayers in Southampton can, through the device of this company, effectively be spent on anything that the company directors think fit. If, for example, the Widdicombe committee recommends a clampdown on local authority propaganda — I hope that it will — SEDCO will be able, under its memorandum, to spend ratepayers' money instead.
If a trade union or individual agrees to give a fixed sum of money to the Southampton Labour party, and is then to be rewarded with a soft grant or loan from the corporation, how will the press or public be able to learn about it? There is no way that the press or public would be able to learn about such matters. That is why I say that it is a recipe for corruption. I feel that all right-thinking people would regard putting local authority money and property beyond the direct control of the local. authority as dubious in the extreme, and depositing or charging public money as security for the debts or other obligations of the company as grossly immoral.
Unfortunately, there are now elements in local government that are not right-thinking and are prepared to bend whatever rules and conventions exist to further their own party political objectives. The members of the board of the company have no experience whatever in investing in businesses, which is apparently the purported purpose of setting up the developmemt corporation. It will take money from existing thriving businesses in Southampton and give it to dubious businesses that may well not survive and are likely to collapse, but only after a good deal of ratepayers' money has been poured into the board.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give a message of hope to those who are desperately trying to resist these sinister developments in local government.
1.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) for raising the question of the activities of the Southampton Economic Development Corporation. The specific case that he has raised in turn raises general issues of principle concerning the activities of local authorities. He touched on the potential conflict of interest facing local government officers who find themselves acting for the council but also for bodies that are at arm's length.
My hon. Friend raised a fundamental issue that we have asked the Widdicombe committee to look at: whether the premise on which Parliament gave local authorities very wide discretionary powers — in the belief that they would honour the convention to use them responsibly—is still valid at a time when, unfortunately, a growing number of local authority councillors exploit to the maximum the framework of the law to use ratepayers' funds for purposes that were never intended by Parliament:. One of the most valuable things that I can do is to refer

1469
my hon. Friend's speech to the Widdicombe inquiry, together with any supportive evidence that he has, particularly from the minutes of the board.
My hon. Friend likened the Southampton ratepayers, whom he represents so ably, to those who are named at Lloyd's, but if one is named at Lloyd's one has the option at the beginning of deciding whether to enter into that obligation. Short of moving out of Southampton—and denying themselves the benefit of my hon. Friend's representation in this House—those who live there do not have the option that members of Lloyd's have of deciding whether to take on a particular liability.
My hon. Friend raised several matters on which I am not able to comment in detail. I should like to reflect on them and seek further advice from my Department, but it might be helpful if I outlined to my hon. Friend and the House the Government's general philosophy about the relationship between local government and the funding of economic activity in a particular local authority area.
I think my hon. Friend will agree that responsible local authorities have a legitimate role to play in the economic development of their district. When my hon. Friend was leader of Wandsworth council, he worked closely with my Department to bring to fruition many worthwhile urban programme schemes directed at creating employment and improving Wandsworth as a place in which to invest. But Wandsworth council was answerable for its proportion of the programme, and there was the element of accountability, whereas in Southampton the link of accountability is somewhat weakened.
My Department's 1982 consultation paper, "Local authority assistance to industry and commerce", stated:
"Local authorities have a key contribution to make to the development of small firms—sand indeed to the encouragement of enterprise generally—through the proper exercise of their statutory powers, and especially in ensuring that enterprises are not unduly hampered by bureaucratic delays, over restrictive planning policies or unnecessarily heavy rate burdens".
In the past weeks two major Government reports have been published. The White Paper "Lifting the Burden" specifically drew attention to how local authorities can help local enterprise to flourish by minimising controls and bureaucracy and by adopting a positive approach through the planning system. Secondly, the publication "Pleasure, Leisure and Jobs" which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has sent to all local authorities outlines one important area of economic growth—tourism—and the important role that local government has to play in developing it.
I must qualify that support with a reservation which I am sure will meet with my hon. Friend's agreement: that local authorities must avoid conflict with central Government's priorities towards regional and inner city development and the control of public expenditure generally.
Local authorities are not capable of taking on and should not be expected to take on the whole burden of reviving the economy. They must work with the grain of national policies and not cut across them. Assisting industry locally should not be used as an excuse for experimenting with doctrinaire economic theories, imposing political conditions on employers, pursuing political propaganda campaigns or side-stepping expenditure controls.
1470
If ratepayers' funds were used through the board to fund party political campaigns, every right-minded person would see that as an abuse of those funds. In the end, a high-spending policy, brought about by a local authority, designed to revive the local economy, will inevitably be self-defeating because of the high rates burden which is added to the costs of local firms.
The Government have also made it clear that they are not opposed in principle to the setting up of enterprise boards. They are still a fairly new feature, and are one way in which local authorities can organise themselves to help industry. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will watch carefully how they develop — the crucial point that he made — and how the parent local authorities exercise control over their activities. My Department has already learned a great deal about the enterprise boards funded by the GLC and the metropolitan counties because we have power and control over their expenditure, which is exercised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Some of those boards have adopted sensible, commercially minded approaches. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not object to that. I have to answer another debate later about the role of the Greater London Enterprise Board. Enterprise boards can offer potential advantages and, as my hon. Friend said, potential disadvantages. For example, an enterprise board, by concentrating local authority services in one body, separated from day-to-day political pressures, may be able to work more closely with the private sector, build up its own special expertise and identify gaps in local private sector provision whether in sites, services or capital. A body operating like that, using commercial criteria but with a regard to local employment needs, seems to me capable of fulfilling a useful role, not least in fostering the birth and growth of small firms in inner city areas.
There are obvious dangers, as my hon. Friend said, if the board diverts local government from what it can do to help in basic policy areas, in assembling land for example; or if it leads to additional bureaucracy with its own priorities, merely adding to industry's rate burden and imposing excessive conditions on the firms receiving aid. Problems would also arise if the scale and nature of the operations worked against national or inner-city priorities. Those dangers, while not inevitable, depend upon the guidelines that are set for the board by the elected members, how its performance is monitored and how it is made accountable.
As I said a moment ago, the Government have set up a committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of David Widdicombe to consider a number of aspects of local authority affairs, including the use of local authorities' discretionary spending power under section 137. As my hon. Friend made clear, it was the use of section 137 which enabled Southampton at the end of the year to use the margin available to it to fund the enterprise board. The Widdicombe inquiry will be looking at the clarification of the limits and the conditions governing the existing powers under section 137. There is a particular reference to bodies set up and largely funded by local authorities. Therefore, I expect the activities mentioned by my hon. Friend to figure quite prominently in the committee's deliberations.
My hon. Friend will understand that we want to have the benefit of the views of the inquiry, as an independent,

1471
impartial body, on the difficult issues that he mentioned before we can consider what policy changes are appropriate.
I come now to particular issues concerning the Southampton city council enterprise board, SEDCO. One of my hon. Friend's concerns is that it could be used to evade the normal Government controls on local authority expenditure. He described the transaction of the £3 million deposit with the £3 million advance.
It is certainly true that there are no constraints on the amount of money that an enterprise board may spend, other than those that apply to any commercial undertaking. Such expenditure is outside Government control on local authorities and could be brought within it only by primary legislation.
Grants to the enterprise board under section 137 would score against the authority's prescribed expenditure allocation. Likewise, revenue grants by Southampton to its board would count towards total expenditure for target purposes. My hon. Friend touched on the guarantees to the enterprise board and the potential long-term commitments that might be inherited by a city council of a different complexion.
As a matter of principle, I welcome private sector capital injections to a board as an indication that it is acting along sound commercial lines. The guarantee provided by the local authority does not score against expenditure until the guarantee is called. If it was called, a guarantee of a revenue nature would count towards total expenditure, but a guarantee of a capital nature would be prescribed expenditure only if the authority thereby came into beneficial occupation of a capital asset.
My Department is now reviewing the whole system of capital expenditure controls in consultation with the local authority associations, and the question of local authority controlled companies will be examined. It is a complex area and I listened with special interest to what my hon. Friend had to say about Councillor Michael Andrews, who was appointed to the board by the city council but subsequently dismissed in the circumstances outlined by my hon. Friend.
If Councillor Andrews was simply being censured for acting responsibly as a guardian of ratepayers, that is something that I would roundly condemn. I would want more details about the case before going further than that; however, there are grounds for anxiety. It raises the point of principle, on which I touched earlier, of the conflict of interest between accountability to the local authority and accountability to the enterprise board to which one is appointed as a director.
In the light of what my hon. Friend has said, we will continue to maintain a close watching brief on the operation of the boards, not least the one in Southampton. The points that my hon. Friend has raised are material to that monitoring exercise. When the recommendations of the Widdicombe inquiry are available, and when the exercise on capital expenditure controls is finalised we will be in a better position to decide whether any changes are required to the legal framework in which they operate.
In the meantime, I commend my hon. Friend for his diligence—which we have grown to expect from him—in bringing to public attention the potential abuse of the position in Southampton. My Department will keep a close watch on the position that he outlined.

Borders Region (Social Fund Assistance)
1.28 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the effect on the Borders region of the European Community's decision to withdraw priority status for social fund assistance.
I apologise to the Minister for having interposed myself between him and his holiday. However, I hope that he will agree that this is a subject worth considering because it has been causing some concern to my local authority. I hope that we shall have a useful half hour's debate.
New guidelines were issued by the European Community on 30 April this year on the management of the European social fund for the years 1986–88. These new guidelines exclude the Borders region from priority for most, though not all, forms of European social fund assistance. Before the change in the guidelines the Borders region was eligible for most types of European social fund assistance, because it came within the "priority" region which at that time encompassed the whole of Scotland.
The EC has now decided to change the geographical coverage of European fund assistance to cover smaller units based on local authority regions and counties which are undertaking industrial restructuring or have a particularly high unemployment rate or, alternatively, many long-term unemployed. Since the guidelines change, only two local authority regions in Scotland are without European social fund assistance priority—the Grampians and my own region of the Borders.
It has been made clear to the Government by me and by my right hon Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) as well as by people in the Borders region that employment by itself is not a good measure of economic well-being in a rural area such as the Borders, to the exclusion of everything else. The total number of unemployed in the Borders region in June 1985 was 3,460, giving an average rate of 9·1 per cent. I fully accept that in other parts of the country unemployment is much higher. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that there has been a slight but significant increase in the level of unemployment since June 1984, when it was 8·6 per cent. That is the direction in which the trend is going and it is causing concern in the Borders.
Within the regional average there are wide local variations in unemployment rates. For example, in the Berwickshire travel-to-work area within the Borders region the June 1985 unemployment rate was 13·3 per cent., which is only slightly lower than the current Scottish average and slightly above the current United Kingdom average. The situation in Berwickshire will deteriorate still further after the civil work stage at the nearby power station at Torness is completed. It seems unfair for the Borders, and Berwickshire in particular, to have European social fund priority withdrawn when other parts of Scotland with lower unemployment rates are being allowed to retain priority status.
The main thrust of the European social fund objective is to provide for the needs of two classes of people, those unemployed under the age of 25 and long-term unemployed. The April 1985 figures for the Borders show that one third of those out of work locally are under 25

1473
years of age. In addition, the number of local long-term unemployed has quadrupled since the late 1970s. In the Borders, 29 per cent. of the unemployed have been out of work for more than a year. In the bigger industrial areas, such as Hawick, 34 per cent. of those out of work have been unemployed for more than a year.
There are other factors that the Government should recognise when they take policy decisions, whether exclusively or in concert with the European Community, about the status afforded to different regions under any development or regional assistance scheme.
The continuous loss of population from areas such as the Borders is a problem. If those in the economically active age groups find difficulty in getting work, they move elsewhere. The Minister may take the view—and it is a view that others Ministers have taken—that there is nothing wrong with that. People may well get on their bikes, but one must consider the enormous problems created by imbalanced population distribution and the knock-on effects in other parts of the community when working age families start to leave the area in significant numbers. One very quickly realises the high price that has to be paid when active families quit the area.
The lack of employment opportunity is another factor which must be taken into account. The regional council in the Borders is doing its utmost to encourage and promote new, diversified industry to create new jobs from within the region and to encourage inward investment. I am pleased to say that it has been extremely successful, but changes, such as the new directive issued in April, mean that the council will be operating in future with one hand tied behind its back. I suggest to the Minister that the high incidence of low pay is another important factor in the Borders economy. Many families there need to have both parents working if they are to have a tolerable standard of living. The existence of two wage earners in a family in other parts of the country often signifies a desire to indulge in luxurious living, like the soft-living people who live in the south-east of England, but in such places as the Borders it is necessary to have both parents working to enable families to keep their heads above water.
There are also difficulties in getting guidance and advice to those out of work in a geographically disparate region such as the Borders. There is no access to commercial job agencies, as there often is in urban areas.
I have been pressing the Government, principally the Minister's colleagues in the Scottish Office, ever since I was elected to the House to recognise that areas such as the Borders have problems. They may not be the same problems as those in the more urban areas and they may be less easily quantified and recognised, but in their own way they are as real and as urgent. In my opinion, they are frequently ignored by Governments.
I strongly urge the Minister to hold urgent talks with his opposite numbers in the Scottish Office. I understand that it is not entirely within his responsibility, but I ask him to discuss these matters with his colleagues with a view to bringing forward early proposals to set up a rural development plan that could be used in conjunction with the Scottish Development Agency's powers and those available already to regional council planners to give a real boost and stimulus to appropriate types of commerce and industry in the landward areas of the United Kingdom.
1474
I accept that the grand, capital-intensive projects that have been considered in regional development schemes in the past may not be appropriate to smaller areas, but there is every opportunity to set up a sensitive and sensible amount of programming and planning within the remit of a rural development plan. It would not cost an enormous sum of money, but it would make a significant difference to the economic activity in such places as the Borders. In my view, no other single initiative could do more to generate real and beneficial economic activity in rural areas.
I remind the Minister, because he is responsible for the Department of Employment, that we in Scotland do not have the benefit of an organisation such as COSIRA, which has set up a rural development area south of the border in Northumberland. From north of the border we look across with envious eyes to what is happening there. Real and positive developments are taking place. The position is made worse from our point of view because Border Television straddles the border area. I get nightly reports on activities in north Northumberland, and my constituents telephone me asking why I am not getting this for them. It does nothing but engender and foster nationalism of the very worst sort, and the Government ignore that at their peril. The work that COSIRA has been doing is commendable. There is a great deal to be said for it, and it should be mirrored north of the border. If we had it, it would go a long way to mitigate the effect of the withdrawal of European social fund assistance.
The Borders lost its assisted area status in August 1982. It meant, among other things, that the Borders was no longer eligible for assistance from the European regional development fund. The loss of priority for European social fund assistance means that the region no longer has effective access to the most important forms of EEC funds available to local authorities. I am aware that restricted eligibility to European social fund assistance still obtains, but my local authority reports to me that it is difficult to use the categories that remain available because they are so very restricted.
I am also aware that to date no real use has been made of the European social fund's schemes. The Borders region has not been able to benefit from the funds but it had begun to mount a series of training initiatives for about 300 unemployed persons through the Borders college of further education. They would have been looking for financial assistance from the European social fund. It is a great tragedy that these efforts, which were well advanced, may be prejudiced if not entirely thwarted by the decision to withdraw priority status from the Borders region.
The Minister therefore owes us answers to a few salient questions. First, what influence, if any, do the Government have over the Commission in Brussels when it takes decisions of this kind? I am as ardent a European as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, but nothing is more likely to sour pro-European feelings than decisions of this kind being visited upon us. I quote from The Scotsman of 12 June 1985 and pray in aid the Conservative Member of Parliament for the European seat of South of Scotland who said:
"According to the Commission's own table of areas with regional problems, the Borders come within the top one fifth, along with regions like Tayside, Central, Fife and Lothians. There must therefore be evidence for including the Borders on the list of regions qualifying for ESF's assistance."

1475
Since the regional authority, the local Members of Parliament and the European Member of Parliament agree that the fund needs to be retained, what influence, if any, do the Government have over the Commission?
Secondly, what representations were made by the Minister on this issue? I accept that negotiations with the authorities in Brussels do not revolve around the needs of Hawick and that policy decisions have to be taken on a much wider basis than that. However, the Government should have considered the implications for regions such as my own and for Grampian when the strategic decision was taken, which predated the April announcement, to withdraw priority status from these two regions.
Finally, will the Minister give an assurance that, if he cannot deliver a rural development plan and if he is unable to have discussions with his colleagues in the Scottish Office about a rural development set-up in Scotland, he will seek to have the Borders region reinstated as an area that qualifies for European social fund grants? Because of the problems faced by 300 youngsters who had expected to be provided with extra assistance for the employment projects of the Borders college of further education, can the Minister assure us that the Government will consider the problems caused by the withdrawal of European social fund assistance? Nevertheless, I hope that he will be able to say something positive about the establishment of a rural fund for the Borders area.
1.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Bottomley): The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has not interrupted my holiday. It was not supposed to start until next week. In fact it is being interrupted by other matters. One of the encouraging aspects of being an Employment Minister is that not only is one able to listen and pay a great deal of attention to representations but one is also able to learn about success stories in the various regions of the United Kingdom. Too often we refer only to the failures. The hon. Gentleman has done well to point to many of the successes in his constituency and in the Borders region. I hope the message will go out that, even if he does not get what he is asking for from the European social fund, although Ministers may occasionally have to say no, we are just as keen as is he to ensure that the 300 young people to whom he referred are provided with the best possible opportunities. All those with the power to influence events —those on the regional council, Members of Parliament and those in statutory or voluntary organisations, or in commerce and the public sector— should try in every way to encourage people to do more for themselves and for others. The idea of such a self-improvement society unites most hon. Members. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) here. There is hardly a Scottish debate in the House without his presence, and often his interventions.
In simple terms, special schemes to meet needs are bound to create problems. Last night, I replied to a debate about the definition of a travel-to-work area. It was said that if a ward could be placed in a different travel-to-work area, extra help would be available. With any scheme people on one side of a boundary say, "We want to be on the other side because our problems are worse than others realise." In the Borders, incomes are lower than they are in some areas. The hon. Gentleman said that that should be taken into account when looking for priority areas under
1476
the European social fund. I would not claim to be an expert on whether it is taken sufficiently into account, but if it was given a higher weighting than the unemployment figures I could not guarantee that the Borders would come top of the list for receiving more favourable consideration.
The Government make representations to the European Commission, and we have views on some areas which we believe, rightly, should be included for priority treatment. The Borders is not at the top of that list. Other areas are in a much worse position than the Borders. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will realise that, however persuasively he has made their case, I must say bluntly that the Borders does not come top of the list of areas that should be given the highest priority. I hope that they will realise that we must work out our priorities and try to do something for the worst afflicted areas first. No doubt all of us would wish to treat the entire country in the same way, but if we did that we might lose assistance. We must exercise some common sense.
The hon. Gentleman asked about our influence with the Commission. I should tell him that the Commission has the legal right and, I expect, the duty under article 6 of the Council decision on the tasks of the social fund to set the priorities for assistance from the fund for each financial year by means of guidelines. The priority areas are part of those guidelines. Member states, including the United Kingdom, are consulted about the contents of the guidelines before publication, and although the Commission will listen to representations that we make, it is not legally bound to accept them. It is responsible for making the final decision. We put in strong representations on behalf of the areas that we believe should be included, and we must then wait to see what the Commission says. If it says something that we believe to be illogical or inconsistent, we can return to the Commission and say so.
It is worth remembering that the United Kingdom does relatively well from the social fund. That is because we deserve to do well. However, we also try to ensure that we take advantage of all the opportunities available to us. The guidelines are there for a purpose — to meet special needs—and if we can organise ourselves and put in the appropriate applications, we shall do well. Those who do not do what the social fund is designed to achieve will not do as well. Occasionally, we are unhappy with changes in allocations, but perhaps any comment about that should be left for another time.
I pay tribute to the officials in the Department of Employment who deal with social fund matters. They have a high reputation with Commission officials in Brussels for the quality of their work and for their knowledge of what we and the Commission are trying to do. They also have a good reputation among applicants from the United Kingdom for their helpfulness and knowledge. That is well reflected in the number of allocations made by the fund to the United Kingdom during the past few years. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that anyone who is thinking of developing a scheme should contact the European social fund section of the Department of Employment. Even without priority status, there are opportunities to help people to put in applications that meet some of the other guidelines.
It is worth saying — and not too loudly — that I suspect that the changes in the guidelines for the European social fund will make virtually no difference to the Borders region. In future, people may think that the schemes that they have worked out would have been accepted under the

1477
old arrangements, but that is looking some way forward. In another debate, which did not come off, another region would have been mentioned which thought that the changes were frightful. That case was not precisely the same, but even under the changes it got twice as much in the subsequent year as in the previous year. Therefore, the changes are not quite as bad as they appear.
I should like to answer some other questions that the hon. Gentleman asked towards the end of his speech. First, he asked what the Government were doing about the position of the Borders in the priority list. We have made it clear to the Commission that we disagree with some parts of the new priority list. We shall continue to make representations. Frankly, that does not mean that we believe that the Borders has been unfairly treated in its position on the priority list. It is worth noting the unemployment rates in some of the new priority areas—for example, 11·3 per cent. in Derbyshire, 12·4 per cent. in Lincolnshire, 10·7 per cent. in Nottingham and 14·6 per cent. in the Isle of Wight. Although I am not going into the details of the level of income and the difficulties of a relatively small population, well dispersed, I think that most people regard it as reasonably fair that there should be some order of priorities.
The reason for having priority regions is that the social fund supports employment and training schemes in the member states, and is invariably oversubscribed. Many of us would have views on the balance of spending in the European Community, but given the size of the social fund as it is now, there is a need for priorities. To ensure that the money available goes to the areas of greatest need, regions with the highest unemployment are given priority for funding. There is a more restricted range of employment and training schemes supported in non-priority regions, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged.
How are priority regions determined? Before the fund review undertaken by the Council of Ministers in 1983, they were defined in the United Kingdom as standard regions with the highest unemployment. The term "standard region" could have been better phrased because the whole of Scotland was regarded as a single standard region and given priority status. Those standard regions were considered too large because, as the hon. Gentleman said, pockets within them that might be seen as having lower priority qualified and some areas where unemployment was high were not in standard regions. The new system allows fund aid to be more precisely targeted, although not as much as some people would like. A balance needed to be struck between targeting aid and the administrative nightmare of splitting the Community into thousands of small areas.
The Commission proposed that the new system should be based on a statistical mechanism. In the United Kingdom, at county or regional level, it would list areas on a hierarchical index with those with the highest unemployment and lowest income placed at the top and those with the lowest unemployment and the highest income at the bottom. Then it would be necessary to find the appropriate cut-off point to determine who had high priority status. That is self-evident.
There has been a delay in introducing the new system because of normal difficulties in working out the statistical mechanism. The Commission was not able to introduce the league table system until 1986, old priority regions
1478
having been retained on a transitional basis for 1984 and 1985. Although the final statistical mechanism has not yet been agreed by the Council of Ministers, the Commission considers the system equitable enough for introduction in the next round of applications and the Government agree in principle that a more rational means of determining regional priorities is necessary.
What is the effect of the change? It is pretty small from the United Kingdom's point of view. Some areas such as the Borders have lost priority and others have gained it, some of which I have mentioned. It is worth noting that the United Kingdom has gained relative to most other member states.
We should not regard the social fund as a great football match in which we try to grab the greatest share that we can. However, it is important to maximise the gain for the United Kingdom. At the same time, it is necessary to consider the underlying purpose of the fund and to ask ourselves whether our targeting is right and whether the existence of the fund encourages us to do things that we might not otherwise have undertaken, especially in the local authority and voluntary sectors.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the unemployment rate in the Borders and the possible effect on the region of its removal from the priority list. It is worth noting that in 1985 there was just one application, which was successful. The application was submitted by a charitable organisation that is directed to the employment rehabilitation of the mentally handicapped. The project is likely to continue to be eligible for social fund assistance despite the change in status of the region. One cannot be absolutely certain but that is the presumption.
The removal of priority status does not exclude the Borders from access to social fund grants. There is scope for applications to be given priority under guidelines that are not subject to regional limitation. Vocational training schemes for new technology skills for those aged under 25 years is one of the target groups. We are as concerned as the hon. Gentleman to ensure that there is as much help for them as possible. We cannot claim that new technology skills are the answer for every young person, but it is important that as many as possible who can benefit from the schemes are able to do so.
The fund is still able to consider training where exceptional measures are being taken to assist industrial restructuring; training-linked jobs in small firms involving certain new technologies; schemes for women, migrant workers or the disabled and innovatory projects. The Department is keen to assist any organisation in the Borders or anywhere else that is contemplating applying to the social fund for assistance. Applications to the Department should be submitted by 31 August. This may mean that some people will not get the holidays that some hon. Members may be expecting.
I turn to the main area in which the hon. Gentlman can help positively, as he is doing, which is to consider whether more can be done perhaps to encourage the establishment of a system that is similar to COSIRA in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman talked about a regional development plan and the creation of appropriate schemes but I cannot provide the answer. In this instance the Department is not the expert and it is not in control. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's comments are passed to my colleagues in the Scottish Office or even the Department of Trade and Industry. I am sure that he will persist in trying to ensure that with or without public

1479
funding there will be the same kind of encouragement, the accumulation of expertise and the finding of means to build and reinforce people's confidence and competence.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the migration of active families and made some mention of dual income households. It is worth noting that I am one part of a dual income household. The hon. Gentleman made a polite remark about my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), which she put in her local newspaper. Unfortunately, his name was misprinted—he was given a female christian name. One of the newspaper's readers wrote asking whether she did not know that the hon. Gentleman was a man. The newspaper printed the letter and it was a week later when it bothered to acknowledge that it was responsible for getting his name wrong.
Apart from examining schemes that have already been agreed, such as the social fund, and pressing for other schemes to be created that will assist in the development of industry and employment in rural areas, we must recognise what is happening outside the social fund, although these developments may be assisted by it. I hope the hon. Gentleman will encourage those who might be referred to as community signposts to learn about the details of the enterprise allowance scheme. It allows many of those who have been out of work for 13 weeks or more and who can produce £1,000 to set up in business while retaining basic benefit for a year. The scheme has been found to be a good way of getting people to fill gaps in the market and to bring together unused resources—often their skills and labour—to meet unmet needs.
It is worth giving encouragement to the youth training scheme. It is knocked sometimes, but it is recognised by those on it to be of great value. The same is true of developing the community programme.
There is a partnership of opportunity and responsibility. We in the Department are glad to play our part and I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to explain that fact. I wish his constituents well in finding employment and creating a better future for themselves.

North-Western Regional Health Authority Plan
2 pm
Mr. Fred Silvester: I have been hoping for some time that my name would he drawn out of Mr. Speaker's hat so that we could debate this subject and I am pleased that it has happened at last, though I am sorry for my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security who has drawn the short straw of replying to the penultimate debate before the recess.
I hope that, although my hon. Friend has a carefully prepared brief from his civil servants, he will throw away some parts of it. I hope that he will not start by telling me that the NHS in the north-west has done relatively well. I know that, and I spend a lot of time telling people that fact. The growth rate in the north-west is 23 per cent. in real terms and is above the national rate. Those who live in Preston, Salford, Wigan, Blackpool, Burnley, Blackburn, Leigh, Bury, Oldham or Tameside will find new hospitals to prove it.
I also do not need to be told that the resource allocation working party system is very good for the north compared with the south, that an extra £52 million has been devoted to the north-west since 1979 and that RAWP is a good system for diverting resources. I know that, too.
I also hope that not too much of my hon. Friend's speech will be devoted to the fact that south Manchester is relatively well off and has 11 per cent. more than the RAWP average for other places in the area. I know that it is the third best in the north-west after Rochdale and Trafford on a hospitalisation index. I mention those facts to get them out of the way. They are agreed and we do not need to debate them.
Let us turn our attention to the nitty-gritty. The regional health authority plan says that Manchester is too attractive. Therefore, it is planned to reduce the number of patient treatments by 9,000 or 10,000—from about 76,000 in 1984 to about 66,000 in 1993. It follows that, with the removal of patients, there will be a removal of beds and of the staff and resources that go with them. The 9,000 or 10,000 patients are to be treated elsewhere in the north-west and the money will go to those districts. We are talking about a localised problem, but one of some magnitude.
While the loss is taking place, south Manchester, like other districts, is witnessing a growth in patient care, reckoned to be 2 or 3 per cent. However, unlike other districts, we are not getting extra money. Indeed, we are losing money. We shall have to deal with additional local patients by squeezing the service provided to them or by sending even more patients elsewhere. That is the basis of the problem.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment recognised in yesterday's statement on the rate support grant that some authorities have less fat to remove than others, because they are already more efficient. We should apply the same principle to the NHS. Compared with other health authorities, the south Manchester authority is efficient and the fat does not exist.
Over the three years up to 1985–86, south Manchester has increased patient treatments by 11·5 per cent. and increased bed throughput by 13 per cent., at a time when

1481
its revenue has fallen by £3 million. It is the only district in the north-west that has managed higher activity on a lower budget.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security claimed in his latest letter to me that south Manchester's efficiency was the result of a massive increase in Government investment. It is true that £5 million capital was spent in the district between 1982 and 1984. However, let us be clear what that means. About £1·25 million of that is going on the cardiac and renal services, which are regional specialties. About £2·8 million is going on the Duchess of York new pediatric unit.
That is being paid for out of the savings—which will accrue by changing from the old service to the new unit —of £600,000 a year. All that the district is obtaining, therefore, is the bridging facility while that money comes in. Meanwhile, to pay for the other on-going expenses at the district level, capital expenses — for example on maintenance—are being severely cut.
The improved cost per patient of the district is due not so much to Government investment, as the Under-Secretary claimed, as to good management and increased efficiency. I emphasise the point about efficiency because the district has the second lowest management costs of the region, at under 3 per cent.
The support costs at the Withington and Christie hospitals are low compared with similar establishments. The staffing at the nursing levels is traditionally lower in the district than in hospitals generally, and the cost per activity in the district is the lowest in the north-west. One might compare, for example, the Royal Marsden with the Christie, two cancer hospitals of international repute. The cost per patient at the Royal Marsden is twice that at the Christie.
To meet the targets and budgets set for the district, the people there have not been idle. We have already closed one geriatric ward, having been told that the region has facilities elsewhere. Let us hope it has. One children's ward is being compressed for a year until the new unit opens. We can live with that. Two chest medicine wards have been closed. Again, the region says that it has scope elsewhere, and we hope it has. The maternity arrangements have been completely reorganised to make savings. Other savings have been made and yet others are projected.
The first of our units has gone out to competitive tender, and that represents a continued search for slimness in an already fit athlete. Nobody denies that those efforts should continue, and they will, but what is currently proposed is, frankly, daft. The Under-Secretary had the cheek in his letter to me to say:
"We are not, in fact, asking South Manchester Health Authority to reduce its services. We are requiring it to live within its means."
He should not insult my intelligence or that of the people of south Manchester. The regional plan precisely and overtly requires south Manchester to reduce its services, and the budget allocated is based on that premise. Therefore, we can live within the means set by the region only by reducing services.
The district has struggled and has managed, on the whole, to maintain services to the patient. Despite much local propaganda, it is generally true that services to the
1482
patient have not been badly affected and are still very good. However, we are storing up severe long-term problems. Some of our facilities are now under great strain and matters such as maintenance will get progressively worse.
However, even what we have accomplished is not enough. The original deficit for the current year was £3 million. By the prodigious efforts that I have described, the authority got it down to £900,000. We now have the pay award which, on our calculations, will add £750,000, so that the deficit will rise to £1·5 million. To achieve that, we are having to look at a 4 per cent. across-the-board cut in services. That will affect the medical as well as the support staff and other facilities. To pretend that this is not a cut in south Manchester is to debase the Government's case. This cut is taking place in a region which is expanding and doing well, but it is certainly a cut and no semantics will overcome that fact.
Is this policy sensible? The Government are undoubtedly right in saying that people on the whole would rather be treated locally so that they no longer need to go into Manchester. However, this takes time. We are not responsible for GP referrals. We cannot be responsible for the speed or the absence of facilities in neighbouring districts. We cannot help it if, as is apparently the case, Christie hospital is bogged down with smear tests referred to it from Merseyside and all over the north-west. The hospital does not have the ability to cope. If these reductions occur, our ability to cope will be diminished. If there is to be a transfer to other parts of the north-west, there must be a link between the transfer and reduction of resources.
There is a grey area between those treatments that are purely local and can be treated in district hospitals elsewhere in the north-west and those that are recognised as regional specialties. The reputation of teaching hospitals, especially these hospitals, continues to act as an attraction. Why not? It is difficult to argue that there is any point in destroying excellence simply because it fits into an administrative pattern.
A new element has entered this confusion. We are told that the reduction in the number of patients in south Manchester will no longer be 9,000 by 1993 but will be only 1,200 because Trafford will no longer have its new general hospital. Instead of losing only 3,500 patients, Trafford will lose 9,000 and the additional patients will come across the border to the Wythenshawe hospital.
By 1993, the reduction in south Manchester will be less than originally imagined. Will there be more money? So far, there has been a resounding silence on that question. Will my hon. Friend the Minister guarantee that revised higher budgets for south Manchester will be rapidly produced between now and 1993 to take account of the fact that the case load will be different? We must have that information as soon as possible.
The facilities which are being closed to meet budgetary requirements will be needed if there are to be additional patients by 1993. Do we really envisage that we will remove facilities, with good teams and people working together, in order to have a downturn in the late 1980s, and that we shall try to reconstruct these facilities in the early 1990s? Does that make any sense? Will my hon. Friend urgently consider the programme with the region and the district between now and 1993 in order to avoid breaking up this year teams which will be needed later?

1483
My hon. Friend the Minister and I are good Tories. One of the aspects of being a good Tory is to be sensitive to the speed of change. They may not think that in the GLC, but it is generally true. No amount of accountants' rhetoric can change that. Even if the region is right —I have doubts about some of its policies—there is no way in which this change can take place at this speed. The change will be too quick and unmanageable.
The co-operation which was supposed to occur between the region and the district has not taken place. The regional chairman, Sir John Page, has clearly said that, if he had more money, he would not give it to the south Manchester district. There are 19 districts and, if 18 benefit and one loses, it is no good taking the matter to a vote. But the Minister has ultimate responsibility for it. which he cannot overcome.
I remind my hon. Friend that in 1983 the Government gave a special grant to Tadworth Court hospital over and above its regional allocation direct from the Department. It then gave £890,000 for each of three years. Far be it from me to suggest that that occurred because it was in the south of England and because there was intense media interest in the matter. I am sure that nothing of that kind occurred to influence the decision. But I will not even ask for the £1·5 million that we are short of; I will settle for the same as Tadworth Court. Will the Minister give us £890,000 or some other suitable sum which will help us through the transitional period?
I am very serious about these matters and I should be more than grateful if the Minister would put away his Civil Service brief and look at the problem seriously for himself, remembering my three questions. I am sure that he desires, as I do, not to tarnish a very good record in the National Health Service, and particularly in the north-west. But we cannot make that stick if we allow the region to inflict severe and unnecessary damage on one of the finest centres of medical skill. care and research in the country.
2.16 pm
The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Despite the kind words of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) at the outset about my having drawn the short straw in being here at this time, I am glad that he has had the opportunity, thanks to his luck in Mr. Speaker's draw—or whatever other mechanism is used for deciding when the debates take place—to bring this subject before the House this afternoon. It enables me to pay a well-deserved tribute to the assiduity with which my hon. Friend advances the cause of his constituents and brings the arguments before the House and before Ministers. It also gives me an opportunity to make some comment on the points that he raised.
My hon. Friend will realise that, in pre-empting some of the points that he expected me to make, I shall not be entirely diverted from some observations about what I take to be the record of the present Administration in providing resources for the Health Service in the north-west, but I shall also try to make some response to my hon. Friend's specific questions.
I do not need to tell my hon. Friend that resources in this area are undoubtedly not limitless, any more than are resources in any of the other fields with which Ministers are concerned in this or other Departments, but often the demands can he limitless. Clearly, there is a very large demand for health services, particularly when we take
1484
account of the increased number of things that can be done with modern techniques and modern knowledge. One of the main reasons for some of the pressures that we face is the very success of modern medicine, with the much wider range and scope of treatment that it can offer.
It is remarkable that south Manchester, like many other districts throughout the country, is treating many patients today who a few years ago would have had no hope whatever of being treated. That is part of the background to our debate. Even allowing for my hon. Friend's comments, that record has been assisted by a very considerable investment in the south Manchester district. Health Service resources will always—it is probably in the nature of things — be catching up with medical advance, but there has been a considerable investment and it has played a part in the achievements to which he referred and which I want to emphasise.
Equally, I accept that our job as Ministers in the DHSS is to look at all the demands, taking account of and making a judgment about priorities. We have to make as fair and just decisions as we can among the many competing claims. More specifically, we have the responsibility—I refer particularly to the Minister for Health and the Under-Secretary of State dealing with health matters — of dividing the money available to the Health Service between the 14 regional health authorities in England. My hon. Friend will understand how sorry my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary are that they were unable to be here this afternoon.
It is the job of the regional health authorities to divide their share among the district health authorities that manage local health services. That allocation of resources to districts must be taken at regional level because at that level are the people who have some genuine understanding of regional and local needs — the people close to the coal face, to use a fashionable metaphor. It is the job of districts to spend prudently the money that they are allocated, as a result of their judgment of what is needed, and not as a result of a decision imposed by Ministers from the centre.
Whatever adjustments one might make to the balance of that decision-making process, it is clear that it would be wrong and unacceptable for south Manchester, or anywhere else, if Ministers attempted to second-guess every decision made at regional or local level.
We are well aware that historically the north-western region has been a deprived area and needs our special attention. My hon. Friend fairly acknowledged that the Government have made great strides towards reducing the inequalities that have existed since the NHS began. Our plans are largely to complete a redistribution of health resources among the relatively well off and relatively poor areas within the next 10 years. The total additional revenue allocation for the north-west this year is £43 million—5·5 per cent above the 1984–85 level. As my hon. Friend is aware, the region is moving quickly towards its revenue target within that framework and will be only 1·8 per cent. below it this year. That should be compared with the fact that it was nearly 11 per cent. below its target in 1977–78 under the Labour Government.
I wish to emphasis the fact that the capital allocation in the north-west this year is the second highest in England. The north-western region receives about 11 per cent. of the national cake for new buildings. About £1 billion-worth of new hospital schemes are being planned, designed and built.

1485
I hope that it will be common ground between my hon. Friend and I that the north-western region is better off now than it was; it is being more fairly treated in relation to other health regions; it is treating more patients and, I understand, receiving fewer complaints about services than ever before.
I recognise that the implications of all that for south Manchester are of interest to my hon. Friend. The district development for teaching has continued rapidly. A number of facts, some of which my hon. Friend has mentioned, should be emphasised. There has been £5 million of capital spending within the district during the past two years. A new day unit for elderly, mentally infirm patients is in operation. My hon. Friend referred to the £1·25 million in revenue that has been spent on cardiac services and kidney dialysis. Those services are of great importance to many people. He also referred to the new paediatric unit at Withington hospital and an acute leukaemia treatment unit at Chistie hospital which are due to be started this year at a cost of £3·6 million.
The district is one of the best funded in the region, and it is the highest funded per head of the population of the north-western region's three teaching districts. In the light of what my hon. Friend said, I do not wish to place great emphasis on that, but in south Manchester it is easier to gain hospital treatment quickly than in many other districts in the north-west, such as Bolton and Blackpool.
Looked at from one point of view, the challenge facing the region—it has its difficulties— is to move other districts towards south Manchester's position. That is the task to which the region has been directing its attention in its new strategic plan. I am in difficulty this afternoon because that new plan was submitted to the Department only recently, and clearly neither officials nor Ministers have had the opportunity that they would wish to consider it.
I am inhibited from giving clear-cut answers to my hon. Friend. It is too early to give a considered reaction to a plan that has only just been received. Against the background of the regional priority, it is clear that south Manchester will continue to develop. This year alone, 50 more open-heart operations are planned at Wythenshawe hospital, making 900 in all, and 41 more renal dialysis treatments are planned at Withington, making 268 in all. That is the sort of development of which we can all be proud, especially those living in south Manchester.
To come closer to the heart of what my hon. Friend was saying, there is the problem that some of that progress could be endangered if the district continues to overspend its cash limits. I understand that £2·8 million is likely to be overspent this year. Unless that is checked, that is money pre-empted from the development in south Manchester and other districts. Under any Government, not just this Government, health authorities must live within their budgets. The regional health authority is therefore working with the district to find ways to reduce the accumulated overspend while continuing to provide the current excellent level of service. They are trying to bring spending under control in ways that go beyond the present arguments and genuinely wish to lay the
1486
foundations for future developments in south Manchester. It is important that that should be achieved because, unless it is, it could put in jeopardy the progress that has been made to make south Manchester the centre of life-saving surgery, which undoubtedly it is.
The district authority has set a budget for 1985–86 that can be contained within its cash limits by making better use of its facilities and cutting out waste. In all of that, the proposals are being carefully monitored by the region to minimise the impact on patient care. As far as possible, the region and district hope to reduce the deficit.
Some of the proposed changes may have an effect on the number of beds in certain specialties. For example, a reduction in the number of chest medicine beds might mean that chest medicine would have to be absorbed by neighbouring districts. But, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, if people can receive the care they need closer to their homes, that is an advantage rather than a disadvantage.
I want to pick up the specific questions raised by my hon. Friend. He referred first to guaranteeing revised higher budgets to take account of changes occurring in the plans in other parts of the north-west. He mentioned preserving teams for facilities that might be needed to meet the outcome of the first question. He raised a point about being sensitive to the speed of change. I thought that he was chancing his arm with his parallel with Tadworth, but I understand the spirit in which he put that forward.
I acknowledge my hon. Friend's questions and their importance. He will not expect me to respond specifically this afternoon against the background that the Government are considering the region's strategic plan that underlies his questions. However, I undertake to ensure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will carefully consider his questions; I will ensure that they are brought to their attention. I have no doubt that they will have those questions in mind when considering the region's plan, as they have a duty to do, and when reaching conclusions upon it.
I thank my hon. Friend for ensuring that these concerns are fully and properly brought to the attention of Ministers. I appreciate the spirit in which he has done that. In spite of the fact that there is a large task for us all in this matter, I see no reason to believe that south Manchester, together with the region—and I hope with the help of Ministers —will not succeed in dealing with the difficulties to which my hon. Friend adverted. There will be good cause for the local community and everyone concerned in the north-west, and south Manchester in particular, to be grateful to them for doing so and to my hon. Friend for his efforts to ensure that these considerations are properly taken into account.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

North-Western Regional Health Authority Plan

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL [LORDS]
  Ordered,
  That in respect of the Weights and Measures Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time. — [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Greater London Enterprise Board
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: It seems most appropriate that the last debate before the House finishes for the summer recess should arise from the subject which has so dominated our proceedings in the current Session. I refer, of course, to the abolition of the Greater London council which concerns a piece of legislation more misconceived and despicable than any other to pass through Parliament in recent years. It also seems most appropriate that answering the debate will be the familiar ministerial figure of the political odd-job man from Marsham street. If work-rate alone is any guarantee of political success, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is well on course to take over from the Secretary of State, now seemingly reconciled to his own abolition in the much-awaited Cabinet reshuffle.
The implications of the GLC abolition, despite what Conservative Members may wish to think, will keep coming back to the House right up to the next general election, because we in the Opposition will not allow Ministers to escape the consequences of their politically motivated butchery of a great council and the democratic rights of Londoners.
The Greater London Enterprise Board is an industrial development and job creation agency set up by the GLC. I should like to pay tribute to Michael Ward, the chairman of the GLC's industry and employment committee, who devised the structure, and to the chief executive and staff who run the board. There have been difficulties, and one understands that immediately, hut GLEB was succeeding in its efforts to bring the prospect of work to some of London's 500,000 unemployed, who are on the dole without any hope of a job because of the Government's economically illiterate policies and their wilful refusal to understand the appalling social consequences of such policies.
GLEB exemplifies in practice what an alternative economic strategy should look like, and it is perhaps because dogmatic Ministers cannot tolerate the notion that there are constructive and viable alternatives to hand for the British people that they have done just about everthing that they can to try to undermine the stability of GLEB's operations. It is bad enough that the Government should be denying Londoners the right to elect their own government for the capital city, without at the same time trying to destroy one of the most exciting and widely appreciated initiatives taken by local government in job creation and economic development policy.
I should like to spell out the immediate situation facing the GLC and the enterprise board as a result of the tactics adopted by the Secretary of State for the Environment and his Ministers. During the first two years of the enterprise board's existence the Greater London council provided a total annual budget of around £30 million, made up of some £20 million section 137 funds and £10 million section 3 mortgage loan facilities. The section 137 fund essentially provided the enterprise board with the investment capital that it needed to preserve jobs and help restructure industry in the interests of the community.
1488
During that period the enterprise board has invested in some 200 projects, including more than 100 enterprises, creating and preserving between 3,000 and 3,500 jobs.
A recent report by the independent accountants Thornton Baker has confirmed that GLEB has been preserving and creating jobs in London at an average cost of around £4,000 per job. That is significantly less than the amount it costs the nation to keep one male adult unemployed for a year, not to mention the fabulous cost of job creation in the Government's own enterprise zones. Quite apart from direct investment in enterprises, the Greater London Enterprise Board has also implemented a path-breaking strategy in harnessing new technology to the production of goods and services needed in the community to provide long-term viable jobs, and is also implementing enlightened social policies, including encouragement for industrial democracy and greater equal opportunities at work.
The establishment by GLEB of five technology networks, which can harness the creative ingenuity of London's academic sector for the creation of new products and services for industry, has received widespread national and international praise. About one third of all GLEB's investments are in new forms of social ownership, notably in worker co-operatives, whose commercial survival rate is significantly better than the average for new private business start-ups.
It is accepted that neither the Greater London council nor GLEB can solve London 's economic problems, since that will take the Socialist policies of the impending Labour Government. But GLEB offers one way that it might be achieved and, since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I am proud to say that regional and local authorities in West Germany, New Zealand and Australia are actively examining the establishment of GLEB-type bodies.
For the current year, the Greater London council made a commitment comparable to the two previous years in allocating GLEB a budget of just under £20 million. However, under the paving legislation in anticipation of the abolition of the GLC, the Department of the Environment was given powers to veto expenditure under section 137. From the very beginning of the current financial year the Government have consistently refused to release the full amount approved by the Greater London council for the enterprise board's budget. I remind the Minister that this is not Government money. It is not money put up by his Department. It is money made available by the Greater London council out of the rates raised in Greater London.
Ministers have put objections and obstacles in the way of the enterprise board throughout the whole of this sorry period. First, they said that they wanted to see a system of accountability instituted with the London boroughs. GLEB is quite prepared and ready to do this. Indeed, it is already doing it now in conjunction with the Greater London council.
So the Government adopted another tactic. They started to drip-feed GLEB by allowing the GLC to put a little of its own money into GLEB. But such an unhelpful policy inevitably will lead to a loss of confidence by financial and commercial institutions in the future of the enterprise board and its supported companies.
Matters became even more difficult when the Secretary of State made it clear that a condition for drip-feeding was that the board called a complete halt to any new investment

1489
work. As a result of that decision, some 20 major projects, involving a potential of about 1,000 jobs which could have provided some hope for London's unemployed have had to be abandoned by the enterprise board as a result entirely of the Government's malicious attitude and obstructive tactics towards the functioning of GLEB.
Still more serious were the indications of increasing nervousness by the banks which have been helping to finance these enterprises, as they perceive the refusal by the Government to release GLEB's entitled funding as a clear signal to withdraw their support from a number of GLEB companies. The Government are responsible for that, and the Minister should hang his head in shame. It has only been the dedication and expertise of the professional staff of the enterprise board which has prevented a series of GLEB companies from being destabilised this summer as a result of the Government's mixture of malevolence and ignorance in the way that they have handled GLEB affairs.
The Minister for Local Government has now told the GLC and the enterprise board that unless a scheme is put to him by the end of this month—Wednesday of next week — he will not even be willing to consider the release of the remaining £10 million of funds due to the enterprise board from the GLC. I underline yet again that this is not money coming from the Minister's parsimonious Department, starving local authorities of cash. It is money coming from the rates already raised and provided by the GLC.
It is well known that a large number of Labour and Tory boroughs want to continue to support GLEB. But the financial uncertainty surrounding the abolition of the GLC, together with rate capping and all the other penalties and controls which the Government now impose on local government, makes it difficult for the boroughs to commit themselves irrevocably. True to form, the Department of the Environment has said nothing about what Ministers consider to be an acceptable level of borough support. The boroughs are told to provide guarantees, but they are never told what guarantees would be acceptable to the Department. I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will elaborate on this matter.
In "Streamlining the Cities" the Government said that they wanted to transfer responsibility for industry and employment from the Greater London council to the London boroughs. During the proceedings in Committee on the Local Government Bill we said that such a proposal was economic nonsense. We remain of that opinion. London desperately needs a regional strategic authority which is able to make plans for jobs and industry in the few difficult years that lie ahead for this Conservative Government. I do not wish to insult the London boroughs, but they do not have the resources and the expertise to deal with these matters.
At least in the early stages of the debate Ministers recognised that in order to take on the additional responsibilities for industry and employment which the Government are to push on to the boroughs they would need increased resources. We were told that the present section 137 2p rate might be doubled to a 4p rate for London as a whole. When the Greater London council is abolished, London will lose the product of a 2p rate. However, no sooner was the ink dry on the White Paper
1490
than the Government abandoned their promise to increase the resources made available to the boroughs for industry and employment purposes. They gave that promise in order to get out of a difficult corner, but they have reneged on their hint that they might provide additional resources.
The boroughs and the Greater London Enterprise Board are therefore in the position that even if the great majority of London boroughs agree to support GLEB they will be unable, with their present resources, to do so. They will be unable to raise the funding to the level that is necessary to maintain, even at an acceptable minimum standard, the board's investment programme. The Government should provide most of the resources for this programme.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to tell us whether the Government intend to honour their promise to raise the section 137 limit. If the Government are not prepared to raise it, I hope that he will be able to identify other resources which the Government will make available to the boroughs. I hope that at least the Government will be able to pledge an amount that is equal to the amount raised by the boroughs. Without such a commitment there will be a serious question mark over GLEB's ability during the next few years to maintain its investment and its operations.
The Government do not directly criticise the Greater London Enterprise Board, but they carry out cynical and careful manoeuvres to ensure that they will not be held responsible for the financial strangulation of the future operations of the board. However, the Government will not be allowed to escape from their responsibilities. The Government must release the money that is owed to the board. That money has already been provided for it by the ratepayers of the Greater London council.
The Department of the Environment must also accept that it has a responsibility to help the boroughs to find the necessary resources, including those that are provided from the Government's coffers, so that adequate funding of the board can be ensured during the period after the abolition of the GLC and before the next general election. After the next general election the incoming Labour Government will translate the commitment of the Labour party to the board into a major priority in terms of its new economic reconstruction programme. They will pledge significant national resources for the investment and job creation activities of the board.
The jobs of many Londoners are being jeopardised by the irresponsible attitude of Ministers to the Greater London Enterprise Board. That attitude is inspired more by political malice and hatred of the GLC than by concern for the job prospects of Londoners.
2.44 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) in asking for some guarantees from the Government, even at this late stage, on the future of the Greater London Enterprise Board. My hon. Friend's case illustated the problem. The Government are not worried because the GLEB has been a failure; they are worried because it has been a success. Just as they hammered into the ground the GLC's fare's fair policy, which proved to be successful, popular, economical and sensible, so they are hammering into the ground the Greater London Enterprise Board because it has been extremely successful in creating jobs cheaply, in a way that puts to shame the

1491
enterprise zones which the Government have promoted and their lack of enterprise in creating jobs in any other area.
As my hon. Friend said, the Government's attitude to the Greater London Enterprise Board or to any success which conflicts with their irrational, Victorian and stupid economic policies is vindictive and malicious. That characterises the Government's attitude to the future of the board when the GLC is abolished.
2.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, it is appropriate that the last debate before the House rises should be on the subject that has dominated the business of both Houses this Session. Of course, it was inevitable that he and J would have to conduct that debate.
There was something symbolic about the hon. Gentleman's solitary stand on this matter today. Until recently he led armies of people round the streets of London, determined to defeat the Government. In Committee he had an army of speech writers, press people and aides at his right hand, and a huge budget available to publicise his case. But now he stands almost alone, apart from the cuddly figure of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). His armed forces have deserted the field. His commander-in-chief is negotiating surrender terms, and I suspect that he had to write the speech that he delivered. The hon. Gentleman resembles the Japanese soldier who emerged from a Pacific island not long ago convinced that the second world war was still in progress.
The hon. Gentleman made a series of remarkable claims about the achievements of the Greater London Enterprise Board. I think he said that it was widely appreciated. I have here a letter from the Consultative Group of Greater London Chambers of Commerce and Trade, which states:
"We are of the opinion that GLEB should be wound up, and that viable assets should be transferred to a new company with an effective management. As a first step we would like to see a completely independent valuation made of the assets of GLEB … we do not wish to see major amounts going from ratepayers to continue the expansion of GLEB or to keep in being enterprises that can only be sustained by continuous public funding."
The hon. Gentleman also said that the board was supported by the London boroughs. I have a letter from the clerk of the housing and works committee of the London Boroughs Association, which states:
"We are … highly critical of much of the work that has been undertaken by the GLC and some of the London boroughs in this area of economic development … In spite of the large budget GLEB have only created a relatively small number of predominantly short-term jobs, and have done nothing to encourage the removal of restrictive practices, overmanning, and the maintenance of artificially high wages. Unless there were significant change in the composition of the management of GLEB and its policies and activities. I do not see any possibility of our members wishing to be involved with it."
That hardly suggests a body that is widely appreciated.
May I deal with some of the figures mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We could spend the rest of the day debating the cost of the jobs created by the board, but other councillors at County hall, who share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the economic problems of
1492
London, have calculated that the jobs created by the board cost, not the £4,000 that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but between £17,000 and £22,000 each.
The hon. Gentleman's problem is that he is trying to say that the GLEB is a responsible body backing worthwhile commercial enterprises in a businesslike way, but he also says that unless the life support system of County hall is continued after 1 April next year the board will collapse. He must make up his mind. Is the board a viable commercial proposition, or not? If it is, there will be no problem, in his words, of convincing the London boroughs that it is worth pursuing. If, as I suspect, it is not a commercial organisation, but an organisation which has funded many projects which can survive only with continual injections of public money, the London boroughs will have understandable reservations about picking up the commitment which the GLC has undertaken.
The achievements of GLEB were compared by the hon. Gentleman with those of the London Docklands Development Corporation, the London Enterprise Agency and other bodies. However, he did not make those comparisons on a common basis. While GLEB's substantial costs to London ratepayers compare with some of those initiatives, its achievement in terms of creating secure, long-term jobs is relatively insignificant. Despite the strenuous efforts made by the council, the hon. Gentleman and GLEB itself, all that we have is a large amount of hot air, a range of political activities of very dubious benefit to Londoners and precious little in the way of a real contribution to the economic well-being of Londoners.
GLEB is almost friendless, in spite of the hon. Gentlemans' claims. The future of the board is quite properly in the hands of the London boroughs. They have told the GLC that they are unable to express support for the board, that they entertain doubts about the wisdom of its policies and investments, and that they may wish to call for a genuinely independent assessment of the board's activities. They will meet my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government on Monday to enlarge on those views. I am sure that he will want to pay close attention to what they have to say. Some London boroughs have gone quite a long way. They see no merit at all in the board, and no justification for expenditure of ratepayers' money on its activities.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister said that the boroughs had asked for an independent audit. If they get it, and if that audit says that GLEB is worth maintaining, will the Minister make extra resources available to the London boroughs so that they can maintain support for GLEB?
Sir George Young: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been listening to what I have said. I have made it clear that the decision rests not with the Government but with the London boroughs. It is they who have to decide whether they wish to continue to support GLEB. It is not a decision in which the Government have any specific role to play.
One of the most damning of the representations that we have received about GLEB is from a company that went to GLEB seeking help to expand its activities and create new jobs. Its approach failed, not, apparently, because it did not have a good case for support, but because the company's energies were exhausted by the excessively

1493
bureaucratic and detailed procedures of the board's staff. I am also tempted to speculate that the board's reaction was prompted, not out of concern for proper investment appraisal, but because the company did not match the board's irrelevant social and political requirements concerning trade union membership and the like——
Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir George Young: No, I must make progress.
One of the difficulties that faced that company was that at a crucial point in the negotiations the GLEB official concerned was in Tahiti for three weeks, and at another critical stage he disappeared to America for another three weeks.
Against the background of criticism from the boroughs, the chambers of commerce, the Confederation of British Industry and individual companies which have been in touch with GLEB, hon. Members may consider that the Government have been reasonable to the point of generosity in our response to the GLC's application for consent to its proposed funding of GLEB in the current financial year to the tune of £20 million, in addition to the £30 million to £40 million that had been provided in the previous two years. The locus of my right hon. Friend in relation to GLEB is narrow, and it is totally misleading of the hon. Gentleman to claim that the board's future is prejudiced simply because he has not without question given his approval to the expenditure concerned.
The problems that now face GLEB and the uncertainty about its future are not of the Government's creation. It is clear from what I have said that those difficulties arise out of the way in which the board has pursued its activities on both the political and investment fronts. Its declared aims include such matters as
"creating novel methods of social ownership and control"
and
"pursuing radical methods of worker involvement in production.".
The impression that one gets when one looks at GLEB is very much that the objective of investing in economic development is subordinated to such political aims to the extent that they are an impediment to what might be achieved. Even when the board's investment policy can be divorced from the overriding conditions about trade union membership and so on, it seems that both the property developments and the company investments have, in practice, been made in such a way that they will not be viable without repeated and substantial subsidies from ratepayers. As I have said, GLEB appears to want it both ways. It wants to be a successful commercial company, but it cannot survive without constant injections of public money.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister wants to kill it off.
Sir George Young: The Government are not against local authority involvement in economic development. We recognise that there is a role for local authorities to play, such as the provision of sites and the use of the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. There is a legitimate role for local authorities to play in providing direct financial assistance to new and expanding companies. However, such activites must be based on a professional and realistic assessment of the market and of local needs. They must be undertaken in partnership with the private sector, which alone can
1494
identify the true requirements of industry and commerce and the particular areas where a public sector input can be be of assistance.
GLEB does not meet those tests, and I shall contrast the situation in London with that in the west midlands. It seems that the West Midlands Enterprise Board has concentrated on the job in hand and has attracted the full support of all the district councils in the area, which will take control of the board when the West Midlands county council is abolished. At a cost of £12·5 million to the county council and its ratepayers, the WMEB has created over 4,000 jobs. In these circumstances, I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend has today given his consent to a final contribution by the West Midlands county council of £3·5 million, which it seems will be sufficient to ensure the board's long-term future. Hereafter, it will continue with the help of the private sector and self-generating income. The WMEB has the green light, but for GLEB the light is still at orange. The WMEB has received all-party support, whereas GLEB has created difficulties for itself politically and with the investment fraternity. It is not an encouraging prospectus for the London boroughs, which might otherwise wish to fund GLEB.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the 2p rate for spending under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. He knows that the GLC has to use section 137 in circumstances where the boroughs do not have to because the boroughs have social service powers which they can use without resorting to section 137. The GLC and the metropolitan counties are not in that position. My right hon. Friend has said that he was willing to consider representations on this front. However, we are not yet convinced that there will be a real problem in any particular area, especially when some of the authorities which complain the loudest are spending large amounts of section 137 money on political propaganda.
The Government believe that to be responsive to local needs and conditions in London and in the metropolitan counties it is right for the boroughs and districts to assume, if they so wish, responsibility for the economic development activities of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. They have all the powers that they need to carry out such activities, and many of them already play an active role in this area. After abolition they will have the full rateable resources of their areas to devote to initiatives which their electorates consider to be necessary. Some of them may wish to join together in such initiatives, and they will be entirely free to do so.
The future of GLEB is therefore for the London boroughs to decide. The GLC reluctantly conceded as much only after my right hon. Friend said that he could not agree to the release of all the expenditure proposed by the council in the current year without satisfactory assurances as to GLEB's continuing accountability to London ratepayers for the large sums which it has received. As an independent company, the board is not affected by the abolition legislation. Only the rights of the GLC in relation to the board which remain in existence at 31 March 1986 will pass to successor authorities. We want to know what rights the GLC proposes to hand over to its successors.
In the meantime, we have gone out of our way to allow the board to continue in operation and to protect its previous company investments, however imprudent some of them might have been, while the GLC belatedly opened

1495
negotiations with the boroughs about the future. Consent has been given to the entire staffing costs of the board for the first half year and to certain repeat investments. Indeed, we have gone further than that and the board now has sufficient funds to discharge all its contractual liabilities throughout the year, and a separate consent has been promised to secure the future of the five technology networks until next July.
The fact that the board's horizons may have been foreshortened is due entirely to the GLC and the policies that it has adopted. It is for that reason that there is uncertainty about the board's future.
Mine is the last speech before the House rises for the summer recess, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will shortly be putting the milk bottles out in Parliament square,
1496
cancelling the newspapers and locking the door. The occupants of the Chair and the staff of the House have had a difficult time during the summer Session and I am sure that their humour and patience have been tested to the full. I hope that I end on a note of unanimity by saying that the entire House wishes the occupants of the Chair and the staff a long and happy summer recess.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I am grateful to the Minister. His good wishes are reciprocated, of course, especially to hard-working Ministers who re ply to so many Adjournment debates.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock till Monday 21 October, pursuant to the resolution of the House of 24 July.

WALES
  Housing Subsidy
  Housing Subsidy
  Refuse Collection
  Refuse Collection
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
CIVIL SERVICE
  Unified Grading
  Unified Grading
THE ARTS
  Acceptances in Lieu of Tax
  Acceptances in Lieu of Tax
  Museums and Galleries
  Museums and Galleries
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Salaries
  Salaries
  Official Opposition (Public Funds)
  Official Opposition (Public Funds)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Famine Aid
  Famine Aid
  St. Helena (Salary Review)
  St. Helena (Salary Review)
  RMS St. Helena
  RMS St. Helena
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  Famine Relief
  Famine Relief
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  EC (Joint Venture Programmes)
  EC (Joint Venture Programmes)
  Aid and Trade
  Aid and Trade
  Korea
  Korea
  Chemists (Retail Price Maintenance)
  Chemists (Retail Price Maintenance)
  Steel
  Steel
  Product Liability
  Product Liability
  Regional Grants (Grimsby)
  Regional Grants (Grimsby)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  COCOM (Agreements)
  COCOM (Agreements)
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  British Overseas Trade Board (South Africa)
  British Overseas Trade Board (South Africa)
  Paper and Board
  Paper and Board
  Sumrie Clothes plc
  Sumrie Clothes plc
  Pharmaceuticals (Patents)
  Pharmaceuticals (Patents)
  Tractors
  Tractors
  Japan (Imports)
  Japan (Imports)
  Korean Goods (Fraudulent Marketing)
  Korean Goods (Fraudulent Marketing)
  Austin Wine
  Austin Wine
  Radio Investigation Service
  Radio Investigation Service
  Domestic Cookers
  Domestic Cookers
  Wide Area Paging
  Wide Area Paging
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Senior Lecturer Post
  Senior Lecturer Post
  Maintained Schools
  Maintained Schools
  Finer Committee Report
  Finer Committee Report
  16 and 17-year-olds
  16 and 17-year-olds
  British Youth Council
  British Youth Council
  Hearing-impaired Children
  Hearing-impaired Children
  Wages and Salaries
  Wages and Salaries
  National Council for Educational Standards
  National Council for Educational Standards
  Migraine
  Migraine
  "Reform of Social Security"
  "Reform of Social Security"
  Curriculum
  Curriculum
  Deep Earth Sampling
  Deep Earth Sampling
  Surrey, South-West
  Surrey, South-West
  British Academy
  British Academy
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Universities (Funding)
  Universities (Funding)
EMPLOYMENT
  Abbeystead Explosion
  Abbeystead Explosion
  Unemployed Persons (Registration)
  Unemployed Persons (Registration)
  Fishermen (Redundancy)
  Fishermen (Redundancy)
  Grimsby (Redundancies)
  Grimsby (Redundancies)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  South West Surrey
  South West Surrey
  Female Unemployment
  Female Unemployment
  Bathgate
  Bathgate
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Devon
  Devon
  Cheshire
  Cheshire
  Parental Leave
  Parental Leave
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
ENERGY
  Coal
  Coal
  Nuclear Materials (Safeguards)
  Nuclear Materials (Safeguards)
  British Gas
  British Gas
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Coking Coal
  Coking Coal
  Coal Stocks
  Coal Stocks
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Data Protection Act
  Data Protection Act
  Data Registrar
  Data Registrar
  Juvenile Offenders
  Juvenile Offenders
  Brixton Prison (Strip Searches)
  Brixton Prison (Strip Searches)
  Ancillary Services (Privatisation)
  Ancillary Services (Privatisation)
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Discharged Prisoners
  Discharged Prisoners
  Immigration and Nationality Department
  Immigration and Nationality Department
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Seaside Resorts
  Seaside Resorts
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Compensation
  Compensation
  Police (Animal Food Cost)
  Police (Animal Food Cost)
  Miss Hilda Murrell
  Miss Hilda Murrell
  Prison Workshop Closures
  Prison Workshop Closures
  Prison Industries
  Prison Industries
  Immigration Inquiry Bureau
  Immigration Inquiry Bureau
  Nationality Applications
  Nationality Applications
  Entry Clearance
  Entry Clearance
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Deportation Appeals
  Deportation Appeals
  Immigration Appeal Adjudications
  Immigration Appeal Adjudications
  Immediate Settlement Applications
  Immediate Settlement Applications
  Passenger Statistics
  Passenger Statistics
  Bail Hostels
  Bail Hostels
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Customs Resources
  Customs Resources
  Special Quota Voucher Holders
  Special Quota Voucher Holders
  Safety Regulations
  Safety Regulations
  Imprisonment Statistics
  Imprisonment Statistics
  Rape
  Rape
  Police (Doctors)
  Police (Doctors)
  Sexual Offences
  Sexual Offences
  Police (Arrests and Stops)
  Police (Arrests and Stops)
  P District
  P District
  Alhaji Umaru Dikko
  Alhaji Umaru Dikko
  Miners' Dispute
  Miners' Dispute
  Straw and Stubble Burning
  Straw and Stubble Burning
  Police (Industrial Disputes)
  Police (Industrial Disputes)
  Dental Students
  Dental Students
  Extradition Treaty
  Extradition Treaty
  Video Classification
  Video Classification
  Hospital Radio
  Hospital Radio
  Life Sentences
  Life Sentences
  Metropolitan Police (Liaison)
  Metropolitan Police (Liaison)
  Emergency Centres
  Emergency Centres
  Interview Waiting Time
  Interview Waiting Time
  Overseas Prisons
  Overseas Prisons
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Ewe Hoggs
  Ewe Hoggs
  Silage Walls
  Silage Walls
  Cereals
  Cereals
  Racehorses
  Racehorses
  Aujeszky's Disease
  Aujeszky's Disease
  Milk Production
  Milk Production
  Intervention Stocks
  Intervention Stocks
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Contaminated Wine
  Contaminated Wine
  Beef
  Beef
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
PRIME MINISTER
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Rosehill Estate, Walsall
  Rosehill Estate, Walsall
  European Council of Foreign Ministers
  European Council of Foreign Ministers
  Trustee Savings Banks
  Trustee Savings Banks
  Washington (Visit)
  Washington (Visit)
  Pensions (Nurses and Midwives)
  Pensions (Nurses and Midwives)
TRANSPORT
  Transport Industries (Output and Employment)
  Transport Industries (Output and Employment)
  Manchester International Airport
  Manchester International Airport
  British Airways (Privatisation)
  British Airways (Privatisation)
  Fire-retardant Materials
  Fire-retardant Materials
  Helicopters
  Helicopters
  Aircraft Safety
  Aircraft Safety
  Unroadworthy Vehicles
  Unroadworthy Vehicles
  American Airlines
  American Airlines
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Coaches (Parking)
  Coaches (Parking)
  Regional Airports
  Regional Airports
  Transport (Safety)
  Transport (Safety)
  Vehicle Registration
  Vehicle Registration
  Kirkhamgate-Dishforth Motorway
  Kirkhamgate-Dishforth Motorway
  M3 (Construction Costs)
  M3 (Construction Costs)
SCOTLAND
  Mantegna Picture
  Mantegna Picture
  Council House Building
  Council House Building
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
  Milk Production
  Milk Production
  Refuse Collection
  Refuse Collection
  Peterhead Harbours Bill
  Peterhead Harbours Bill
  Islands Councils
  Islands Councils
  Intervention Stocks
  Intervention Stocks
  Torness Power Station
  Torness Power Station
  Children (Prison Detention)
  Children (Prison Detention)
  Dunblane Bypass
  Dunblane Bypass
  Planning Zones
  Planning Zones
  Housing (Shared Ownership Schemes)
  Housing (Shared Ownership Schemes)
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Scottish National Camps Association
  Scottish National Camps Association
  Tertiary Education Advisory Committee
  Tertiary Education Advisory Committee
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Job Creation Cost
  Job Creation Cost
  Contingency Reserve
  Contingency Reserve
  Economic Policy
  Economic Policy
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Inland Revenue (Performance Bonus Scheme)
  Inland Revenue (Performance Bonus Scheme)
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
  Variable Import Levies
  Variable Import Levies
  Maintenance Payments (Tax Relief)
  Maintenance Payments (Tax Relief)
  EC Expenditure
  EC Expenditure
  One-parent Families (Finer Committee)
  One-parent Families (Finer Committee)
  Pension and Life Assurance Funds
  Pension and Life Assurance Funds
  Taxation and National Insurance
  Taxation and National Insurance
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Petroleum Revenue
  Petroleum Revenue
  Customs and Excise
  Customs and Excise
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  British Gas Corporation
  British Gas Corporation
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Electricity Industry
  Electricity Industry
  Objects in Lieu of Tax
  Objects in Lieu of Tax
  Sterling
  Sterling
  Personal Data (Transfers)
  Personal Data (Transfers)
  Overseas Investment
  Overseas Investment
  Trustee Savings Bank
  Trustee Savings Bank
  Private Health Insurance Companies
  Private Health Insurance Companies
  Private Hospitals and Clinics
  Private Hospitals and Clinics
  Asset Sales Programme
  Asset Sales Programme
  Premium Bonds
  Premium Bonds
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Departmental Committees of Inquiry
  Departmental Committees of Inquiry
  Asset Valuation
  Asset Valuation
  Directors
  Directors
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Average Earnings
  Average Earnings
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Age Allowance
  Age Allowance
  Taxable Income
  Taxable Income
  Married Women
  Married Women
  Early Leaver Entitlements
  Early Leaver Entitlements
  Married and Single Person Allowance
  Married and Single Person Allowance
  Income sTax
  Income sTax
  Occupational Pension Funds
  Occupational Pension Funds
  Loans
  Loans
DEFENCE
  RAF Greenham Common
  RAF Greenham Common
  Military Aircraft (Accident Statistics)
  Military Aircraft (Accident Statistics)
  Gurkha Garrison, Hong Kong
  Gurkha Garrison, Hong Kong
  Housing Stock
  Housing Stock
  Hermetic Metal
  Hermetic Metal
  Crown Proceedings Act
  Crown Proceedings Act
  Medical Services
  Medical Services
  Prosthetic Services
  Prosthetic Services
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Hercules Aircraft
  Hercules Aircraft
  Army Records
  Army Records
  Boarding School Allowance
  Boarding School Allowance
  Polaris
  Polaris
  Secretary of State (Visit to Washington)
  Secretary of State (Visit to Washington)
  Valuation
  Valuation
  RAF Trainers
  RAF Trainers
  Nimrod
  Nimrod
  Royal Dockyards
  Royal Dockyards
  Royal Ordnance plc
  Royal Ordnance plc
  Piracy
  Piracy
  Defence Situation Centre
  Defence Situation Centre
  Radiation Tests
  Radiation Tests
ENVIRONMENT
  Families and Housing (Statistics)
  Families and Housing (Statistics)
  Portsmouth City Council (Urban Aid)
  Portsmouth City Council (Urban Aid)
  Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission
  Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission
  Local Authorities (Contracts)
  Local Authorities (Contracts)
  Housing Renewal (Portsmouth)
  Housing Renewal (Portsmouth)
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
  House Conversions
  House Conversions
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Explosion (Abbeystead)
  Explosion (Abbeystead)
  Song Birds
  Song Birds
  Rosehill Estate, Walsall
  Rosehill Estate, Walsall
  Outside Toilets
  Outside Toilets
  Ministerial Duties
  Ministerial Duties
  Public Sector Housing
  Public Sector Housing
  Housing (Humberside)
  Housing (Humberside)
  Hum Airport
  Hum Airport
  Drinking Water
  Drinking Water
  Water Information Letter (Publication)
  Water Information Letter (Publication)
  Superstores
  Superstores
  Greater London Development Plan
  Greater London Development Plan
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Royal Parks
  Royal Parks
  Palace of Westminster
  Palace of Westminster
  Field Heath Nurseries
  Field Heath Nurseries
  Coal Production (Rateable Values)
  Coal Production (Rateable Values)
  Avon
  Avon
  Coalfield Communities Campaign
  Coalfield Communities Campaign
  Olympic Games
  Olympic Games
  Broad Street Station
  Broad Street Station
  Green Belt
  Green Belt
  Planning
  Planning
  Buckinghamshire
  Buckinghamshire
  Enterprise Zones
  Enterprise Zones
  Tower Hamlets
  Tower Hamlets
  Hackney
  Hackney
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Hampshire
  Hampshire
  Basildon
  Basildon
  Greater London (Sporting Schemes)
  Greater London (Sporting Schemes)
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Local Government Inquiry
  Local Government Inquiry
  Rate Limitation
  Rate Limitation
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Property (Spain)
  Property (Spain)
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Youth Councils
  Youth Councils
  North Atlantic Assembly
  North Atlantic Assembly
  South Africa (Emergency Powers)
  South Africa (Emergency Powers)
  Non-Proliferation Treaty
  Non-Proliferation Treaty
  Entry Clearance Officers
  Entry Clearance Officers
  Baltic States
  Baltic States
  Nuclear Tests
  Nuclear Tests
  Prince Mashour
  Prince Mashour
  Italian Terrorists
  Italian Terrorists
  European Assembly
  European Assembly
  EC Directives
  EC Directives
  EC Intergovernmental Conference
  EC Intergovernmental Conference
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Board and Lodging Allowances
  Board and Lodging Allowances
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Trustee Savings Bank
  Trustee Savings Bank
  Unruly Certificates
  Unruly Certificates
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Newham (Trial Costs)
  Newham (Trial Costs)
  Social Security Appeal Tribunals
  Social Security Appeal Tribunals
  Crown Courts
  Crown Courts
  Finer Committee Report
  Finer Committee Report
  Social Security Appeals
  Social Security Appeals
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Parades
  Parades
  Catering Training
  Catering Training
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Teaching Posts
  Teaching Posts
  Animals (Slaughter)
  Animals (Slaughter)
  Milk Production
  Milk Production
  Schools (Pupil Choice)
  Schools (Pupil Choice)
  A and M Grades
  A and M Grades
  Skimmed Milk Powder
  Skimmed Milk Powder
  Beef
  Beef
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Sheltered Housing
  Sheltered Housing
  Agricultural Training Colleges
  Agricultural Training Colleges
  Ultra Heat-treated Milk
  Ultra Heat-treated Milk
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Schools (Amalgamation)
  Schools (Amalgamation)
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Housing Executive (Rehabilitation Schemes)
  Housing Executive (Rehabilitation Schemes)
  Housebuilding
  Housebuilding
  Agriculture Students
  Agriculture Students
  Departmental Land
  Departmental Land
  Store Cattle
  Store Cattle
  Cattle Imports (Slaughter)
  Cattle Imports (Slaughter)
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Housing Executive Property
  Housing Executive Property
  Student Nurses
  Student Nurses
  Southern Health and Social Services Board
  Southern Health and Social Services Board
  Southern Education and Library Board
  Southern Education and Library Board
  Housing Executive (Maintenance Costs)
  Housing Executive (Maintenance Costs)
  Roads Expenditure
  Roads Expenditure
  Vacant Housing
  Vacant Housing
  Live Cattle
  Live Cattle
  Pigs
  Pigs
  Agriculture Training Colleges
  Agriculture Training Colleges
  Experimental Farms
  Experimental Farms
  Ewe Premiums
  Ewe Premiums
  Republic of Ireland
  Republic of Ireland
  Processions
  Processions
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978
  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978
  Processions
  Processions
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Housing Costs
  Housing Costs
  Schizophrenic Patients
  Schizophrenic Patients
  Tobacco Advertising
  Tobacco Advertising
  Human Growth Hormone
  Human Growth Hormone
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Appeals
  Appeals
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Acute Beds (Staffing)
  Acute Beds (Staffing)
  NHS Staff
  NHS Staff
  Patients (Statistics)
  Patients (Statistics)
  Cheltenham Health District
  Cheltenham Health District
  Locum Doctors
  Locum Doctors
  Drug Abuse Centres
  Drug Abuse Centres
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Non-contributory Invalidity Pension
  Non-contributory Invalidity Pension
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Invalid Care Allowance
  "S" Manual
  "S" Manual
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Tobacco Advertising
  Tobacco Advertising
  North-West Thames RHA
  North-West Thames RHA
  Westminster Hospital
  Westminster Hospital
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Health Services (Stockport)
  Health Services (Stockport)
  Oxfordshire Health Authority
  Oxfordshire Health Authority
  Horton Hospital, Banbury
  Horton Hospital, Banbury
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Disability Aids
  Disability Aids
  Students (Benefits)
  Students (Benefits)
  Board and Lodging
  Board and Lodging
  Residential Homes
  Residential Homes
  Social Security Review
  Social Security Review
  Nursing Staff (Bexley)
  Nursing Staff (Bexley)
  Care in the Community
  Care in the Community
  War Pensions
  War Pensions
  Skoal Bandits
  Skoal Bandits
  Snuff Dipping
  Snuff Dipping
  Private Patients (Charges)
  Private Patients (Charges)
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Hospital Contractors (VAT)
  Hospital Contractors (VAT)
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Private Patients
  Private Patients
  Private Hospitals
  Private Hospitals
  Opticians (Prices)
  Opticians (Prices)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
  Family Expenditure
  Family Expenditure
  British Pensioners (South Africa)
  British Pensioners (South Africa)
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  Arm Amputees (Chiropody)
  Arm Amputees (Chiropody)
  Special Health Authorities (Appointments)
  Special Health Authorities (Appointments)
  Newcastle Pensions Office (Dispute)
  Newcastle Pensions Office (Dispute)
  Drug Addicts
  Drug Addicts
  Coronary Bypass Operations
  Coronary Bypass Operations
  Students (Accommodation)
  Students (Accommodation)
  Nurses
  Nurses
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Basildon Hospital
  Basildon Hospital
  Hospital Radio
  Hospital Radio
  Welfield Hospital, Hatfield
  Welfield Hospital, Hatfield
  Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research
  Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research
  NHS (Expenditure)
  NHS (Expenditure)
  Tooth Decay
  Tooth Decay
  Repatriation Scheme
  Repatriation Scheme
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Resettlement Units
  Resettlement Units
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Beds and Nurses
  Beds and Nurses

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR Oil the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Ethiopia: Famine Relief
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the value of aid given to Ethiopian famine victims by (a) the United Kingdom (b) the Common Market (c) the United States of America and (d) the Soviet Union.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, since the beginning of 1983 the cost of British famine relief to Ethiopia, including our share of European Community relief, has amounted to £65 million. During the same period the European Community, as such, has provided £84 million. We do not have comparable figures for the United States, but in the United States' fiscal year ending on 30th September 1984 the United States provided £12 million and in the current year plans to provide about £112 million. We do not know the value of any famine relief provided to Ethiopia by the Soviet Union, but overall the famine relief assistance provided by the Soviet Union and its allies is on a very small scale compared with that being provided by the West.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for her reply. Will she not agree that from not only this quarter of the House but all quarters of the House a debt of gratitude is owed to Bob Geldof and all involved in Band Aid for the tremendous work they have done to help these poor people in Ethiopia? Will she not further agree that the Answer to the Question shows that we and our allies are providing a lot of aid to these people and that the Russians seem to prefer to give aid in different ways?
Baroness Young: My Lords, yes. I am glad to publicly acknowledge the extraordinary amount of money that has been raised by the Band Aid group, which I think reflects the very real feeling of all British people of concern about the famine in Ethiopia. I think the figures speak well for what has been provided by the Western countries in this tragedy.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government have already admitted that they have provided no new money for the famine relief in Ethiopia or elsewhere, and that all the money that has been provided has been transferred from one part of the ODA budget, including the contingency fund within that budget, to another part? Does this not mean that some of the normal recipients of our aid are
1460
having to go without? In this connection, is it true, as has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition in another place, that one of the sufferers from this transfer of aid is Tanzania and the money that was to go to the support of hospitals in that country?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has asked that question before, and I shall confirm the answer that I gave him earlier: that the money which has been provided for famine relief in Ethiopia has come largely from the contingency fund; and that if he looks at the Answer that has been given by my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development in another place, he will see that he has confirmed that it has come from the contingency fund, the purpose of which is to provide money for such emergencies.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, so far—
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I was asking where the money has been transferred from. Will the noble Baroness answer my question? Where has the money been transferred from?
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, so far as help from the Soviet Union to Ethiopia is concerned, can my noble friend confirm that it has mainly taken the form of arms provided to enable the Marxist Government of that country to fight their enemies?
Baroness Young: My Lords, there is some evidence that that is the case.
Lord Oram: My Lords, if the purpose of the original Question was to prove that the Soviet Union is cynical, self-seeking and ungenerous in its attitude to developing countries, is that not something that is well known, has been very much on the record for some 40 years, and applies as much to Ethiopia as to the third world in general? However, if the purpose of the Question was to seek to prove how generous our Government and the United States Government have been, why compare them with the Soviet Union, which has such a drastically poor record in this matter? Would the noble Lord not be well advised to study the report of the all-party Foreign Affairs Committee on Famine in Africa, which was highly critical of the degree of support that the Government have given?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is not for me to question the reasons a particular Question has been put down on the Order Paper; it is for the Government to respond to it. I have given the figures as asked, and I think the House can draw its own conclusions from them. I have already indicated that, quite properly, we have given very generously in response to the very tragic situation arising from famine in Ethiopia and indeed in other parts of Africa. I should add that not only has there been the money that we have given through the ODA but also the Ministry of Defence has contributed some £9 million as its share of the RAF airlift in Ethiopia.
Lord Harvey of Prestbury: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the figures she has given include the cost of operating the Hercules aircraft in Ethiopia?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have just indicated that the Ministry of Defence has contributed a certain proportion of that. The other part will come from the direct money from the ODA.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I ask a question that is intended entirely in a constructive sense? The noble Baroness says that a large part of our £64 million came from the ODA contingency fund. Can she say where the other part came from, and what was the breakdown?
Baroness Young: My Lords, if the purpose of the noble Lord's question is to identify some projects that have been lost, my understanding of the situation is that the money has come from the contingency fund and that, in the course of a year, not necessarily all the money is actually spent, because for a variety of reasons it cannot be spent. I do not have any reason for thinking that we have switched money from one project to another for Ethiopia.
Lord Reay: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether Her Majesty's Government are going to be involved in any way in the distribution of the money raised by the Live Aid concert?
Baroness Young: My Lords, how the money is spent and how any of the supplies may be distributed is of course a matter for the Live Aid group and their supporters. However, if we are asked for help or advice, we shall be very happy to give it.
Lord Oram: My Lords, has not Mr. Bob Geldof struck up a partnership with USAID in this matter, and was there not an opportunity that, possibly, our Government missed in offering help in the distribution of the funds that he and his colleagues have raised? Did we miss an opportunity?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am not aware that we have missed an opportunity. Our position has been absolutely plain all along. We wish the aid to get to the people who require it. If asked, we would help in any way we could in the distribution of it.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, am I correct that the noble Baroness's answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, indicates that money has not been switched from Tanzania, and particularly from hospitals in Tanzania, in order to fund relief work in Ethiopia?
Baroness Young: My Lords, that is my understanding of the position.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, apart from the Government contribution, is there any estimate of the amount of money collected and sent from individual British people and provided in that way?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not have that figure in front of me. I know, however, that it amounts to a very generous sum of money. My understanding is that it is quite a proportion of the sum of money that the Government have raised. I believe that this reflects the real concern of the British people.

Magnifying Spectacles as Tools of Trade
11.16 a.m.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to ensure that workers and craftsmen in industry are able to obtain from general supplies spectacles with the magnification appropriate to the needs of their occupations, and whether such spectacles can be classified as tools.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not aware of any reasons why there should be difficulties with the supply of magnifying aids where these are required as a tool of trade.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, the noble Earl will have received a paper from me yesterday showing how the Association of Optical Practitioners has been operating a restriction on what it describes as magnifying spectacles in the form of twin lenses of indentical power. These are used extensively in industry, and the different magnifications are applicable to different jobs. Does the noble Earl agree that it is extremely important that people in industry should always have access, without prescription but by choice, to these particular magnifications? Will he assure the House that within supplies to industry these optical applicances will be available?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, in particular for giving me advance notice and sending me a copy of what he intended to ask. I can tell him that the Office of Fair Trading published a report on opticians and competition in December 1982. As a result of that report, the Association of Optical Practitioners withdrew a particular restrictive practice about which the noble Lord was concerned, as it did another restrictive practice concerning empty frames.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much for that reply. Does that mean that they can be obtained without a prescription?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if they are magnifying aids they can be obtained without prescription. If the spectacles or goggles are required to remedy a defect of sight, then a prescription will be needed.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that such activity, if embarked upon, will conform to all the elements involved in safety at work legislation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, indeed I can.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, my noble friend has referred to remedying a defect of sight. What about using machinery with spectacles such as mine, which are there to assist a defect of sight?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if my noble friend has to wear glasses which are purely magnifying aids,

1463
then he will not need a prescription. If they are to remedy a defect of sight, which might involve a small magnification, he will need a prescription.

Traffic Congestion in Central London
11.19 a.m.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have given further consideration to the problem presented by the density of traffic in central London; and if so, what conclusions they have reached, and what action they propose to take.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, traffic congestion in central London is at present primarily a matter for the GLC as traffic authority. However, the Government are discussing the many aspects of the problem with representatives of the London borough councils and with the police and other bodies concerned.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, arising out of that Answer, does the noble Lord not recollect that when I asked this question about a month ago he said that the traffic authority for central London was the GLC, and he went on to say that good progress was being made? Since then, the only progress that I can see made by the GLC has been towards the grave. I want to ask the noble Lord for an assurance that Her Majesty's Government now intend to set up some kind of effective traffic authority in London that will do a good job and have adequate powers and that will not just sit by and watch London traffic invaded from all sides by heavy vehicles, especially coaches, to the extent that it is being steadily reduced to chaos. That is what is happening at the present time.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I hope I indicated in my original Answer to the noble Lord, the Government are concerned about the problem. We have several proposals in hand. The White Paper on Pleasure, Leisure and Jobs, published earlier this week by my noble friend the Minister Without Portfolio, proposes Government action on coach parking in central London and the possible use of sites owned by the nationalised industries. We also intend next year to bring in the improved fixed penalty system under which unpaid penalties will be enforceable as a fine with a 50 per cent. premium. That should considerably improve their deterrent effect. We are also studying how new technology can best be used to aid enforcement and lead to better traffic flow. Furthermore, we have commissioned assessment studies of the problems in four of London's main traffic corridors in order to identify the problems and assess the options for improvements. The consultants' reports on the first stage of that exercise are due later this year, and they will be published for comment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, do the Government recognise the contribution made towards solving this problem by the Greater London Council's fares policy, which it is generally recognised increased the number of passengers travelling on the bus and Underground services and which thus helped to relieve the transport problem? Also, in the light of the problem revealed in the Question, why are the Government so critical of the GLC's ban on lorries at certain times? I believe this ban was reached after some two years of inquiry.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government are critical of the GLC for the obvious reason that traffic conditions in London are bad, and traffic has been the GLC's responsibility for a number of years. As regards the GLC lorry ban, the noble Lord will be aware that my right honourable friend has lodged an appeal against the High Court ruling. Therefore the matter is sub judice and it is not appropriate for me to discuss it at present. However, the Government have made clear all along that the current issue is not whether lorries should be uncontrolled—and we have encouraged local authorities to apply sensible local policies—but whether a blanket ban is the right approach.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, did not the Minister find it surprising that, when the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, called for a comprehensive traffic authority for London, the noble Lord's friends sitting behind him said, "Hear, hear"? I say this bearing in mind that they have consistently trouped through the lobbies against that proposal over the past few weeks.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, Lord Boothby's Question specifically relates to the density of traffic in central London, and that will be of concern mainly to the Westminster City Council and the surrounding boroughs. I hardly think that any input from the outlying boroughs, such as perhaps Hillingdon or Hounslow, can help in the present situation to alleviate the problem in central London.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, arising out of what the noble Lord said about the Westminster City Council, is he aware of the chaotic conditions prevailing around the Victoria Coach Station and that one of the reasons for those conditions is the number of long-distance coaches—such as the Green Line and the express lines—going to distant parts of the country, combined with the tourist coaches? Will the Government take steps to allow the Westminster City Council to control the routes which those coaches can take rather than diluting their powers through the present legislation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, first, I do not accept that the present legislation dilutes their powers. We have had several meetings with Westminster City Council and one took place as recently as yesterday. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my honourable friend the Minister of State intend to meet the leader of Westminster City Council next Tuesday to discuss these matters and to point out to the council the very real powers that they currently possess under the Road Traffic Regulations Act, under Section 6 of which they can prescribe routes to be

1465
used; ban coaches from particular streets; establish bus or coach lanes; exempt buses and coaches from no right turn bans; allow or ban waiting; and regulate the queues of people waiting in the streets. Those powers are fairly considerable.
Lord Morris: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the day when we should really start worrying is the day when the overseas and long-distance coaches cease visiting London?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, overseas tourism to London is a very important part of London's economy and a major provider of jobs. I very much hope that we can find a satisfactory solution to this problem which does not stop these coaches coming into London but which will, hopefully, find—as I indicated earlier in our discussion—somewhere better to put them.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the routes out of London to the South are a sheer disgrace for a capital city and that the routes out to the North and the East are very little better? Does he not agree that the situation requires two things—first, overall traffic planning for London, and secondly, a great deal of capital investment?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have already indicated that the department has initiated four traffic assessment studies and I hope that something positive will come out of them. I would not agree entirely with the noble Lord that all the routes out of London are unsatisfactory, particularly those which I know of to the West and the South-West. In my view, they are reasonably satisfactory.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that not all the problems mentioned in the Question as being presented by the density of traffic in London occur above ground? A great number of the problems occur underneath the roads in London, especially those roads onto which heavy traffic is being funnelled in order to alleviate some of the problems in the centre. I point to the recent tragic result of heavy traffic in Putney, where the gas explosion was attributed directly to heavy traffic which should not have been going over that road at all and which fractured the gas main. There are sewers and mains of all descriptions being damaged daily in London because of the density of traffic. Are the Government doing anything about it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am aware of the report to which the noble Lord has referred, which I think came out only today and therefore I have not had time to study it myself. The noble Lord will also be aware that we have not gone ahead with the Common Market proposals to raise the weight of heavy lorries and I hope that he will be pleased with that decision.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, notwithstanding the traffic jam of proposals which the noble Lord has announced, does he agree that it would be very worthwhile if the Government were prepared to consider—and perhaps
1466
he could refer this matter to the top source available—examining the results (and the statistics are available) of the GLC's programme of Fares Fair, which caused a considerable reduction of traffic on the London roads and increased the profits of the London Underground and London Transport? It was a very sensible idea which was knocked on the head by the judges. Should it not be reinstated as it made a real contribution?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am aware of the Fares Fair controversy which took place some years ago. I point out that, under the current management of LRT, traffic is still increasing and in our view at the moment, the balance between ratepayer and passenger is the correct one.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one of the problems is the lack of co-ordination between municipal authorities and the police in London which makes it quite distinct from other capitals and from other towns? Is it not the case that one of the consequences is the growth of on-street parking, which is now becoming worse instead of improving in London and is actually filling-out traffic routes? Will the noble Lord discuss the matter with his right honourable friends and see whether something cannot be done about it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that, despite the fact that there are many ways in which to improve traffic in London, the situation in our capital city is far better than that in Rome, New York and very often Paris?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not visited the first two cities which the noble Lord mentioned, but I have visited Paris. However, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, perhaps I may inform the noble Lord that most people in London do not live in the places which he has indicated.

Prison Building Programme
11.29 a.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the new prison building programme is on target.
Baroness Cox: Yes, my Lords. Wayland Prison, the first of the 16 projects in the current programme, was completed last year and is now operating at full capacity. The new Stocken Prison, which was completed in April, has just begun to receive inmates, and a third project, Thorn Cross Youth Custody Centre, will do so shortly. Two more projects will be completed in 1986 and three in 1987. The remainder of the programme will come on stream as planned between 1988 and 1992.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is the Minister aware that this Question is raised at a time when the prison population, at 48,100 is the highest on record? Was this intolerable and unacceptable total at this time taken into account when the building programme was framed? If it was not, is the Minister satisfied that the programme is capable of taking account of the upward curve in the prison population? Can we be assured that professional bodies, such as the Prison Officers' Association, are always fully consulted on the design aspects and many other aspects of prisons upon which undoubtedly they have expertise?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, the commitment to the building programme to put us on course to end overcrowding by the end of the decade was based on long-term projections of the growth of the prison population. The current projections, published in May 1985, continue to indicate that the commitment is still intact, suggesting a total population in 1991 in the range of 47,500 to 49,600.
However, these projections do not take account of the recent and indeed disturbing sharp increase in the prison population which currently stands, as the noble Lord said, at around 48,000. It is too soon to say whether this increase is a temporary fluctuation or represents a long-term upward shift. We shall review the position in the light of the next set of projections, which will be available in the new year. To deal with the noble Lord's second question, on consultation, there are established arrangements for consultation with the unions representing governors and also other prison staff at all points during the briefing and design stages of projects, and the views of staff are fully taken into account by the design teams.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the new prison programme will relieve the problem of remand? Is she aware that Scotland and then England have the highest percentage of young prisoners under 21 in prison in Europe?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, on the question of relief of the pressure on remand places, five of the schemes in the programme are for new local prisons and one is for a new remand centre. Together these will provide some 3,500 additional remand places. The creation also of new places in training prisons will help to relieve pressure on local prisons, by facilitating the transfer of sentenced prisoners in the locals for whom training places are currently unavailable. Major modernisation and redevelopment work is in progress or planned at almost all the existing local prisons. The other point which the noble Baroness made is an important one.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at no time since 1945 have there been enough prison places for those for whom they should be provided? The nearest we formerly have got to meeting the requirements was the programme a quarter of a century ago by Mr. R. A. Butler, as he then was, when he was Home Secretary. The Government's present building programme, which my noble friend has announced, is the greatest
1468
contribution made since Mr. Butler's prison-building programme and should, if reasonable expedition is used, go far towards solving the problem.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for making that point.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, following upon what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, is not the real position that the new building programme will only serve to replace in part old prisons which are falling apart? Are the Government really considering sufficiently alternative proposals to custody? Are the Government, for example, able to announce a speedy programme in regard to the building of bail hostels?
Have the Government considered—and, if not, will they consider favourably—the offers of the National Association of Probation Officers in their publication of May 1985, in which they say that a great opportunity is being missed; that if only they had the necessary facilities and numbers they would be able to increase back-up facilities to extend that service's work with alcoholic, drug dependent, and mentally disturbed offenders, increase involvement in work within the community aimed at preventing crime, and indeed increase attention to the large group of young adult offenders involved in motor crime and burglary?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, the current total estimated cost of the programme to which the Government are committed is just over £360 million. In 1985–86 we plan to spend a total of about £48 million on building new establishments—which I think goes some of the way towards meeting the first of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—and also £75 million on building work at existing establishments. So there is a considerable commitment of resources not only to renovation but to new institutions. So far as alternatives to custodial sentences are concerned, there is already a wide range of non-custodial sentences available to the courts. I am sure that my right honourable friend will take note of all representations made to him by professional bodies.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like, if I may—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, on the particular point of—
Noble Lords: Lord Mishcon!
Lord Mishcon: If the noble Lord will permit me—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, with great respect, the noble Lord has already had one question. I am now following it up. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether she will give particular attention to this question of bail hostels. Is she aware that the growth of the prison population is already outstripping the growth of the number of new places which are being provided in this building programme? That being so, will she consider particularly whether some of this money could not be diverted to the construction of bail hostels, which apart from anything else are a great deal cheaper than places in prison?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I shall certainly undertake to draw my right honourable friend's attention to that important point.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for having repeated the question that I previously asked.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, and putting it, if I may say so, very much shorter.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, that might of course mean a not complete knowledge of the subject. I do not want to continue a debate at Question Time, and shall not do so; but is the noble Baroness able to give any answer to the question about the expedition of the building of bail hostels?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, as I have already said, I shall ask my right honourable friend that question. I do not have an answer this morning. I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful for the fullness and fairness of the Minister's original reply to my Question. Will she also take on board the crucial nature of the design of new prisons, bearing in mind the disaster of the design of the new prison at Holloway? Will she also acknowledge that no amount of money in the world spent on building new prisons will be any use unless there are discussions in respect of the proper manning levels within the prisons? Will she undertake that that matter will be considered in consultation with the prison officers and governors?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, the noble Lord may be reassured to know that the Home Office is currently conducting an appraisal of recent American prison designs in order to assess the extent to which we ought to take account of developments elsewhere. Concerning the important question of the relationship of manpower to buildings, my right honourable friend has already announced a major increase in the size of the prison service over the next few years in order to provide the staff to man the new prisons which are being built. Future manning levels are taken fully into account, along with capital costs, before new schemes are added to that building programme.

Okehampton By-Pass
11.39 a.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the by-pass of Okehampton on the A30. The House will know that earlier this year the Government's compulsory purchase orders for a route for the by-pass to the south of the town were referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945. That committee, by a majority of 4 to 2, recommended rejecting the orders, and proposed instead a route to the north of
1470
the town. This recommendation was contrary to that of the independent inspector who held a 96-day public inquiry during which all the issues were exhaustively discussed. He endorsed the southern route, which has been the route preferred by all successive Administrations since 1976. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I agreed with the inspector, that the balance of environmental and economic advantage lies in favour of the southern route, and we proceeded to make the orders.
"Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear: everyone is united about the need for a by-pass, although I am fully aware of the strong and conflicting opinions which the route of the proposed by-pass has aroused, both in Parliament and in the South-West of England. This issue must be resolved once and for all.
"The Joint Committee believe that a route to the north could be constructed quickly. I must tell the House that it takes on average 13 years to plan and build a road. With the best will in the world and no difficulties arising I doubt if we could complete a northern route in much under eight or nine years. It could be much more if there were difficulties, or if the inspector was again to recommend the southern route. For the people of Okehampton and the people of Devon and Cornwall the long delay and the uncertainty would be intolerable, when the southern route could be completed in three years.
"Parliamentary Select Committees make reports to Parliament, and it is for Parliament to accept or reject them. In this case a procedure for doing this is laid down in the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act. It provides in Section 6 for a confirming Bill to be brought in. Accordingly, the Government will introduce such a Bill at the earliest opportunity to confirm the southern route."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating that Statement. But the only thing on which I believe there will be universal agreement is the recognition of the need for a by-pass at Okehampton, not only for the people of that town, but for the road users—and I have had some experience.
The Statement refers to the acceptance of the argument of this inspector on the environmental and economic advantage of the southern route. Does this mean that the Government are now abandoning the 1976 circular, which has been accepted by successive Governments, that there be no main trunk road development in the national parks? Does it also mean in the reference to economic advantage that where farming land is affected that will not be regarded as an alternative route? If so, does that mean that many other proposals will be considered again by the Government, not least the development at Stansted? Is this not a slap in the face for the Joint Select Committee, which I believe spent some 15 days hearing counsel and witnesses before it made its recommendation to reject the order? Clearly, as the Government have not dealt with the points I raised on the 1976 circular and the alternative route, the time

1471
factor is a specious argument. I believe the Government themselves visualise that a Channel tunnel could be built in four years, and surely one could deal with a road more quickly than is suggested here, particularly in view of the praise we gave only recently to the speedy work done on the reconstruction of the M.1.
This is not a political matter. It is not a matter for a general debate, but I hope that all noble Lords will read the debate held in this House on 3rd December (at cols. 1151 to 1178 of Hansard) before this Bill comes to the House. We can assure the Government that the Bill will be strongly contested on non-political and all-party grounds.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I should like to endorse that last remark of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that this is not a party matter. It will certainly cut across party lines and people will find themselves on different sides of the argument. As he earlier said, there is no doubt that Okehampton must have a by-pass and there is general acceptance of that on all sides. Certainly, the people of West Devon and of Cornwall are well aware of the fact that there should be a by-pass but there could have been a by-pass in existence already if successive governments had not chickened out to the farmers. We could have had a northern route some years ago. It is because of that that we find ourselves in this pickle. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has rightly said, this contravenes the Government's policy on national parks as set out in Circular No. 41/76, although I think he was unfair in not quoting the full wording of that circular which said, "if no alternative exists". Nevertheless, I argue that an alternative does exist in the shape of the northern route. I find it difficult to accept that the Government believe in their own heart that it could take 13 years, or even the eight or nine years referred to in the Statement. I am convinced that with the work that has taken place already on this subject, with the knowledge that everybody has of the facts of the case, there could be some way of short circuiting the planning cycle. If not, then by Jove! it is about time we considered carefully our planning inquiry system.
Finally, I think the cavalier way in which the Government have overturned the decision of the Joint Select Committee of both Houses, which is a quasi-judicial committee, is intolerable. There are two aspects of this case with which we disagree. On this I speak for all my noble friends. The first is the dangerous precedent which is set by taking a new road through a national park in this way, and the second is the way in which the Select Committee of both Houses has been treated. To suggest that because the independent inspector spent 96 days on a public inquiry and the Select Committee spent only 15, then somehow or other his judgment is better than theirs is nonsense because the committee had all the results of that inquiry before them when they took that decision. It was a clear decision by 4:2, and I am sure that if the Government have a 2:1 majority on anything they do not consider that is a weak decision. It is a sad day in my view both for procedures in this House and for national parks while at the same time recognising that West Devon and Cornwall need this by-pass,
1472
especially the people of Okehampton. So surely there is a better way.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall try to answer one or two of the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me whether this meant an abandonment of the principles of the 1976 circular. I should remind him that the route proposed was announced in 1976 after the circular had been issued by the Administration of which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was a member and it is not for me to speak on their behalf.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I was a supporter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. It is unwise to assume that that Administration did not consider in the interaction of national roads a national parks policy before reaching their decision. There is no question that a decision by Parliament to proceed with the southern route would ruin the national parks policy. The Government have to consider the balance of advantages and disadvantages when policies interact as they do in Okehampton. We decided that the balance lay in favour of the southern route and, following exhaustive debate, the inspector agreed. Both noble Lords in effect asked me whether this was not a slap in the face for the Joint Select Committee. Not at all. The 1945 Act, under which the Joint Committee considered this matter, also provides for a confirming Bill procedure. An Act of Parliament can hardly be considered unconstitutional or a slap in the face for the Select Committee. Furthermore, there is a precedent for this and it has already been used in 1949 in the case of the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board Authority.
Regarding the timing of the new route, I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that we could hope to achieve a northern route in much under the eight or nine years that I mentioned. This would only mean that we could do it without a public inquiry on the northern route. I assure the noble Lord that a public inquiry on the northern route would be bitterly contested, not only by farmers but by environmentalists as well. This is because the northern route would take the road through land which is just as attractive—if not more so—as that lying on the southern route.
For those reasons, I do not believe that an inquiry will be likely to be available before mid-1990 unless those affected or interested by it waive their rights of objection; and I can see no possibility that that would be the case. As I have said, that would mean that the road could not start much before 1992 or be completed before 1994. The southern route, on the other hand, could be completed within three years of now if Parliament decides to pass the confirming Bill that we propose.
Lord Molson: My Lords, do the Government recognise that by introducing this Bill they will be breaching the undertakings given to me by the late Arthur Greenwood when Lord Privy Seal on the Report stage of the Bill in order to facilitate its passage? I was speaking for a body which called itself

1473
the Conservative Active Back-Benchers and we were much concerned about the very wide powers which this Bill contained. We did not object to it in principle but it was agreed by the Government, and in emphatic words by the Lord Privy Seal, that they would not use a majority in the House of Commons in order to override individual rights as expressed to joint committees of both Houses upstairs. That principle has been observed with meticulous correctness by all Governments for the last 40 years and, until today, by the present Government. There is now a departure from what has been a constitutional respect for the promises given by the Minister in charge of that Bill at that time; and this departure is being made in order to breach the policy laid down in Circular 4 of 1976.
I hope that the Government will give further thought to this and will continue to respect what has become an established constitutional principle and recognise that in a certain sense the Joint Select Committee of both Houses acting under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act is analogous to (shall I say?) the Law Lords sitting and acting on behalf of the House and advising the House. I would ask the Government, even at this late stage, to reconsider the matter rather than to go back on an established custom which has been observed by both parties for so long.
I would only add that it will be necessary for us to oppose the proposal in principle. It is not that we are going into the details of the route; that is a matter that has been gone into fully. This is merely a matter of raising two important constitutional issues.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot entirely agree with my noble friend. First of all, I have quoted the precedent of 1949, when the confirming Bill procedure was used. Secondly, I should like to quote from Hansard (column 2181 of 14th November, 1945) the words of the then Lord Privy Seal. He said:
"I should like to make the position of this Government, and I think of any other Government, clear in this matter. The present Government are just as anxious as were the previous Government, which first introduced this Bill, that all interests which ought to have a hearing shall be heard but—and I do not think that honourable Members opposite can dissent from this—it must rest with the Government of the day, whatever its complexion, to advise Parliament whether a particular issue raised on a Ministerial order is or is not one of policy on which the Government may feel bound to use their Parliamentary resources in support of their point of view. I should imagine that would be accepted by the Front Bench opposite. I gather that it was certainly in the mind of the previous Government when the Bill was under consideration by them".
Again, I repeat that I cannot believe that it is unconstitutional to continue with the Joint Committee procedure through to bringing in the confirming Bill, which will be laid before both Houses of Parliament and both Houses of Parliament will have opportunity to debate and make their decision on it.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, while understanding the concern of the noble Lord that Ministers have decided to overturn the recommendation of a Joint Committee, nevertheless I welcome the decision because this is an outstanding delay in the construction of a most important road. I should like to get the Minister's assurance that this could mean the beginning of a
1474
revision of all the archaic, exhaustive and exhausting procedures that have to be gone through before road decisions can be taken—which, in my view, are a public scandal.
With respect to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, events have moved—except for our road system—since 1945. Frankly, it is a disgrace that so many important road developments particularly, for example, the M.25, have been held up for an interminable time and at enormous additional cost by prolonged and very often quite irrelevant aspects of public inquiry.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, for his remarks. I can confirm that we are looking at the planning procedure in general terms and I do not know how close we are to reaching any sort of conclusion. I should like to repeat the assurance that I have given the House that in no way does that alter our attitude to the national parks policy of Circular 4 of 1976.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend say what is the length of new road that would require to be built for the southern and the northern by-passes respectively, because that must affect the timetable? Can he say whether this breach of the principle of the 1976 circular is to be regarded as a precedent giving freedom to Ministers to breach it again in future, or is it to be regarded as a rare exception?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in answer to the second point which my noble friend raised, it certainly will be regarded as very much the exception hut I would point out that the circular itself says:
"Application of the policy to some parks does, however, give rise to particularly difficult considerations because of their geographical locations".
I should have thought that, in this case, that particular sentence in the circular was fairly relevant. Regarding the difference between the mileages between the southern and northern routes, the proposed northern route would be longer by some five miles.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that, as a member of the joint committee in question, I can assure him that the committee took the decision very seriously? We were all much aware of the possibility of delay and the effects that any delay would cause. In fact, we included in our recommendation a mention of the delay and our concern over it, though some of the delay had been the fault of the inspector originally and was unavoidable because of illness. Since then, there has been a great deal of delay caused by Government actions. In fact, the Joint Committee reported in April. We are now in July, so there has already been three or four months' delay added to that. There was this concern.
The noble Lord seems to be brushing aside the 4:2 majority on the committee and rather downgrading the committee. I imagine that there will be a great deal of consternation among people who are interested and involved in this road project—as there was in my own case when I learnt this morning that there was to be a Statement. We have become quite accustomed since 1979 to major policy Statements on a Friday. But to make one on a Friday when the House of Commons

1475
has risen and this House is half risen, I think is taking matters much further. It is not really the time or opportunity to mention major policy. It is a major decision even if some noble Lords do not think so. The decision to override that Joint Committee will be regarded as a major problem throughout Parliament.
The noble Lord mentioned Circular 4/76. The committee went into that in great detail and we examined witnesses for days. It is quite true that it was after the issuing of the policy, but nonetheless there was a firm commitment in that circular that no new trunk roads would be extended or constructed through a national park. On that basis, the DoE recommended the northern route. Everyone was aware of this; and had they acted on that decision the road would have been built by now. Whose fault caused the delay in that instance? The committee discussed the environmental objections, which included an evaluation of the land, and so a great deal of the work the Minister has mentioned—that the value of the land, and so on, would have to be gone into—has to a large extent been done. We also visited the area and saw for ourselves the shattering effect that the type of construction would have on that unspoilt and very precious part of England and of a national park. We were very much aware of that.
In regard to the constitutional problem—and I have not had a great deal of time to check on this—I understood that to override a Joint Committee is in itself very unusual. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, said he did not recollect within his experience that that had been done, and the noble Lord has far more experience than I have. It is certainly unusual, to say the least, and I should have thought that will be hotly and fiercely debated in both Chambers when they deal with it. I also understand that it would be very unusual for any Bill that is produced to do other than support the committee. According to my understanding of what is being discussed, it is because of that that the Bill will be deemed to have had its Committee stage and that in fact it will be introduced at its Report stage. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong. It is deemed to be like that because the proceedings of the Joint Committee are alleged to be accepted as the Committee proceedings. Therefore there are a number of issues which are going to be contested, I can assure your Lordships, when the House is fuller and when the other House is in session. There will be many questions to be answered, and not least the question of delays and what has caused them.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are of course grateful for the work which the Joint Committee did. Many of the matters the noble Lord has raised, as he quite rightly said, will no doubt be hotly debated when this Bill comes before your Lordships' House. I can confirm that the Bill will reach us, as it were, at the Report stage and we shall then have a Report stage and Third Reading; so there will be at lest two opportunities to debate the matter. It will be a very short Bill—a matter of one clause only, I understand—so the issue will not be difficult to decide.
With regard to the timing of the Statement today—incidentally, the other place is sitting today and my right honourable friend has made the Statement there this morning—this was a matter for
1476
the usual channels in the other place yesterday. We were originally going to take the Statement yesterday, but I gather that the usual channels in the other place thought yesterday that the thorny problems of rate support grant would probably occupy much of their afternoon.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to correct one answer which I gave to my noble friend Lord Renton. When I said that the northern route would be five miles longer than the southern route, I was incorrect. The southern route will be approximately five miles and the northern route will be six miles, so the northern route is only one mile longer.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of the correction my noble friend has made, will he explain how it is that the southern route would take such a very much shorter time although it is not a much shorter distance?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, because, subject to these two compulsory purchase orders (which is really what we are talking about today), the rest of the line of the route is decided and construction can start as soon as, or if, the two compulsory purchase orders are agreed to by both Houses. As regards the northern route, time would have to be taken on a public inquiry and we would need to establish a new line of route. I would also point out—although this is probably a matter to be dealt with when the Bill comes before us—that there are important engineering difficulties to be dealt with on the northern route.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1985
Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order 1985
Child Benefit (Up-Rating) Regulations 1985
Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1985
Housing Benefits (Increase of Needs Allowances) Regulations 1985
Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1985
Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Amendment and Up-rating Regulations 1985
Social Security Benefit (Dependency) Amendment Regulations 1985
12.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington) rose to move, That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order

1477
1985 be approved. This order is accompanied by a report from the Government Actuary on the effects of the proposals on the National Insurance Fund and by a statement on mobility allowance.
With your Lordships' permission, I will also deal with the other seven Motions in my name on the Order Paper—rather a few, I fear. I propose to deal separately with the Vaccine Damage Payments Order since my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has given me notice of his intention to raise a number of quite specific points which are best perhaps looked at apart from the generality of up-rating considerations. These instruments put into effect the up-rating of social security benefits announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in another place on 18th June. They also provide for the payment of the £10 Christmas bonus and make certain other changes which I shall come to later.
Perhaps it will be to your Lordships' convenience if I briefly outline the major features of the up-rating package, which will take effect during the week commencing 25th November. As your Lordships are aware, this is the last time that benefits will be increased in November. The next up-rating will be in July 1986: and in 1987 and from then on the increases will take place in April. But to return to 1985, the majority of benefits, including retirement pension, unemployment benefit, widows' benefits and war pensions, will be increased by 7 per cent., in line with the movement in the general index of retail prices in the 12 months to May this year. Supplementary benefits will he increased by 5·1 per cent.—in line with the Retail Price Index minus housing costs. Almost all housing benefit needs allowances will be increased by between 5·5 and 6·2 per cent., according to the usual formula, and child benefit will be increased to £7 a week.
The major feature of this up-rating is the protection of almost all the main benefits against inflation. We have not let the temporary up-turn in the inflation rate alter our determination to keep our pledge to pensioners and other long-term beneficiaries to protect the value of their benefits. Furthermore, we are also protecting unpledged benefits such as unemployment benefit and supplementary allowance. Because these increases are significantly higher than the rate of inflation expected in the latter part of the year, your Lordships might wish to reflect that, were we still using the forecast method of up-rating favoured by the last Labour Government, pensioners and others would be receiving an increase substantially less than that set out in the instruments before you today.
The one major benefit which will not be increased in line with inflation is child benefit, which will go up by 2·2 per cent. to £7 a week. As your Lordships will be aware, increases in child benefit are extremely expensive, and having decided that it was right to retain child benefit in its present non-means-tested, non-taxable form we would be doing less than our duty if we did not look very carefully at whether any increase in the level of child benefit was justified in the context of the burden imposed by a social security up-rating of this size.
We shall, however, direct most help to those families who are on low incomes. Accordingly, we
1478
have increased the family income supplement prescribed amounts by more than 7 per cent. and have modified the scheme to take account of the higher costs faced by families with older children. The new prescribed amounts for a one-child family will therefore be increased to £97·50 a week where the child is under 11, £98·50 where the child is 11 to 15 years old, and £99·50 where the child is 16 to 19 and still at school. For each additional child the prescribed amount will increase by £11·50, £12·50 and £13·50, again depending on the age of the child.
As well as targeting help more effectively, this measure will help mitigate the effects of the unemployment trap, by aligning more closely the rates paid to low-income working families with children and the rates paid to families who are unemployed and receiving supplementary benefit. To the same end we are increasing the housing benefit child's needs allowances by nearly £1 a week more than the normal up-rating formula would require.
Invalidity pensioners will also receive an up-rating beyond the rate of inflation—some 12 per cent., in fact, worth over £4 a week to single beneficiaries and £6·50 a week to married couples. This is because, as your Lordships will know, we are restoring the 5 per cent. abatement of invalidity pension, despite the fact that there are, at present, no plans to bring the benefit into taxation.
We propose to make a couple of changes to the heating additions paid with supplementary benefit, which will be up-rated as normally by the rise in fuel prices—4·4 per cent. between May 1984 and May 1985. From 5th August there will be no new awards of central heating additions. These additions were introduced in the early 1960s, when the few claimants with central heating spent more than other claimants on fuel. Now about half of all claimants have central heating; central heating is more efficient; and claimants with gas and electric central heating systems spend less on average than claimants without central heating. These heating additions have thus outlived their purpose. I would stress, though, that these proposals will not affect existing claimants: anyone who is receiving a central heating addition on 5th August will continue to do so while they stay on benefit and remain eligible under the current rules.
We also propose to extend lower-rate heating additions, which will be worth £2·20 a week from November, to all sick and disabled claimants on the long-term rate of supplementary benefit. This is in recognition of the extra heating that claimants in this position may need. It is expected to benefit around 18,000 claimants.
The Social Security Benefit (Dependency) Amendment Regulations provide for an amended earnings rule for adult dependants of recipients of certain long-term benefits. The level of the earnings rule will be set at the rate of unemployment benefit—more generous than the existing rules applying to husbands of wives getting a long-term benefit but less than that for wives of men getting benefit. The regulations thus provide for equal treatment of men and women. By linking the level of the earnings rule to the rate of unemployment benefit we are ensuring that the rule will be regularly increased. There will be transitional protection for

1479
existing beneficiaries so no one will actually lose. The new limits will apply to new claimants from 16th September.
The limits on payments for board and lodging do not form part of the regulations before your Lordships' House today. However, the Government undertook, when announcing the new limits in March, to give further information around the time of the up-rating debates about the arrangements for review.
As your Lordships know, we have set in hand extensive arrangements for monitoring the operation of the revised board and lodging rules as well as commissioning research. By the turn of the year we hope to have at least preliminary results which will enable us to conduct a comprehensive review of the limits. In association with this review we intend also to review the level of the meals allowances for boarders and people with no fixed abode. We are not up-rating these allowances in November, unlike the boarders' personal expenses allowances. The meals allowances already stand at nearly £30 a week—more than the total benefit available to most non-householders for all purposes, not just food. We have had several representations about this anomaly. The underlying assumption—that people have three cooked meals a day—is increasingly out of touch with current lifestyles.
We intend to implement the outcome of our full review at the time of the next up-rating, in July 1986. But that is not all. Without prejudice to the outcome of the review we have also decided to make some increases this autumn in the limits which apply to residential and nursing homes. Early reports from our monitoring suggest that the limits set earlier this year, though based on the best information available at the time, were tighter than we intended, particularly for nursing homes. Naturally we want to put this right at the earliest opportunity.
The information available to us is still limited and certainly does not permit fine tuning; that must await the full reviews. Meanwhile, as an interim measure, we shall this autumn be increasing the limits for all types of residential homes by £10 a week, so that these limits will fall in the range of £120 to £180 per week. We shall also be increasing the supplement which is added to these amounts for nursing homes to £50 a week. This means that the limits for nursing homes will be increased by nearly one quarter and will, after November, fall in the range of £170 to £230 a week.
In conclusion, I should like to say that, with this up-rating, at a cost of over £2,000 million in a full year, we have shown our determination to keep our pledges over pensions and linked long-term benefits; we have gone further by protecting almost all other benefits; and we have given extra help to invalidity pensioners and to many low-income working families. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th July be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee];
That the draft order laid before the House on 5th July be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee];
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th July be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee];
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th July be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee];
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th July be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee];
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th July be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee];
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th July be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee];
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd July be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Trumpington).
12.15 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I have a great sympathy for the noble Baroness, and for the rest of us, in the way we are having to handle these complicated matters today. I have said before that I do not think our business managers in either House, or of either party, have yet achieved the right way in which we ought to deal with these complicated social security affairs. We have had the Green Paper debate; we have had a Social Security Bill; and now we have all these orders today.
It is quite usual to have orders which are formal and only intended to meet the rise in inflation. But I feel that this mass of orders before us today is commencing the implementation of the Green Paper. I understood that consultation on the Green Paper was supposed to continue until September. There are many points in these orders today which seem to pre-empt consultation and which reaffirm the thoughts of many of us that consultation was never intended to be real: it was just a pleasant phrase thrown into some rather difficult documentation.
I promise your Lordships that I shall not go into a lot of detail, although I should quite enjoy going line by line through every single order today; but we are beginning the elements of the restructure which is not supposed to have begun yet. I think that that must be the background to however short a debate we have. For instance, I have been trying to find out—especially after the noble Baroness said how much more money was being spent—how much money was being saved by the totality of today's changes. Having got up early enough to read yesterday's Hansard for the other place, I find in col. 1356 that the Government are expecting to save—not spend—£2,000 million in a full year as a result of this handful of pieces of paper that we are discussing today.
Most of these orders are referred to as up-ratings. But they are not up-ratings for everybody. In fact, they are downratings so far as child benefit is concerned. There is of course an up-rating of 7 per cent. for pensioners which we welcome. But the effects of adverse changes which are being made in housing benefit and in heating allowances, and the proposed cuts in single payments under supplementary benefit, will erode that 7 per cent. improvement in income for very many people.
I must say something friendly. I welcome—I am sure that we all do—the increase in the limits of

1481
payments for nursing and residential homes. The original limits have caused a lot of anxiety and distress to residents who felt that they were likely to be put out on the streets, because their charges were not within the limits. I hope that the Government will continue to watch that very carefully so that these people continue to be protected as much as possible.
But so far as child benefits are concerned, this is the greatest disappointment to many people of all parties, and when one reads the reports of debates in another place one can see that the concern is not limited to any particular party. I remember—I cannot think why I did it—that I inflicted on myself the pleasure and displeasure of watching the last Conservative Party conference on television. It was very interesting because several speakers emphasised the importance they found in their constituencies of the child benefit arrangements. I understood that undertakings were given that the care of the family was nearest to the heart of this Government.
Now there is to be an increase of 15p and the amount is to go up from £6·85 to £7. If it were to keep in line with inflation of 7 per cent. the amount would go up by 35p. But instead of getting a 7 per cent. up-rating, as for pensioners and other beneficiaries, the child benefit is going up by only 2·2 per cent. I cannot see how that can be justified. I do not know why the Government picked on 2·2, instead of 1·2 or 3·2 per cent. It seems an extraordinary way to have gone about this very important question because we know that the most effective and cost-efficient way of dealing with family poverty is through child benefit. When I was in another place this was agreed between all parties when arrangements were made to abolish the income tax allowance for children and to abolish family allowances and instead to bring in this child benefit. Like the question of SERPS, which we discussed the other day, it is a great pity when some all-party arrangement, which has been made one hopes for the benefit of the community, is overturned in this unilateral way.
I understand that because the child benefit is going up by only 2·2 per cent., the Government will save £175 million. Because I cannot count I took that figure very carefully from col. 1349 of Hansard of the other place for 25th July. The noble Baroness said—and I know her colleagues have also said it on many occasions—that the whole idea of these changes is to target on the poorest, so the attitude is that, instead of spreading out the 35p over every child, there shall be a targeting on the very poorest children, and the Government save £175 million by this policy.
Then I tried to find out how much they are spending on the targeting on increases in family income supplement and other benefits. The figure that was given in the other place was £26 million. The Government saved £175 million, but increased expenditure by £26 million. I cannot see where the targeting on the poorest families is going. It is not a transfer of benefit from the well-off; it is a straight cut and it is from the poor to the poorest.
I rather liked a letter which I read in the Daily Mirror. It is not a paper which I read every day, but one mother wrote this on 9th July 1985:
1482
"The child benefit rise of 15p during November will, at least, pay for another pair of shoe laces for my son, provided I save it for two weeks, because they cost 25p now. By November they will probably be 30p".
That is an illustration of the sort of expenses which families have to meet and of which I do not think Ministers are always aware.
We are in a situation—and I do not apologise for taking a little while on this because it is fundamental; we ought not to be discussing fundamentals on an order today, but this is the background of it—where the combined value of the child tax allowances and the family allowances that we used to have amounted to more public expense than the cost of child benefit today. It certainly was not our intention—and, as I understood it, it was not the intention of leaders of other parties—that that should happen. I know the Minister hopes that the improved rates of the family income supplement will help the poorest, but there is a very low take-up of family income supplement. I know of many families which, for reasons best known to themselves, do not take it up, and which will suffer from what is in reality a cut in the child benefit.
I want to say a word about the fuel changes. I understand from what the Minister said that there are to be no new central heating awards made after 5th August. What is magic about 5th August? Some half blind old lady may not find out until 6th August that she might have applied. What is the difference between 5th August and 6th August? I want to ask the Minister what steps are being taken to inform people of this magic date? If I were not in the unfortunate position of having to see all these pieces of paper in your Lordships' House, I would not have known, and I am not sure what steps the Minister is taking to inform the public of this deprivation. How are the Government to explain this to old people? Are there to be no exceptions? Are there to be no appeals?
The Minister made some glib statement about how central heating is improving and how it would not cost very much. I can take her to places where it is not improving and where the situation is as had as it ever was. I want to know why these people, who have expensive and not very efficient central heating, have to be penalised. At the same time, the Government are artificially raising costs of heating by the hidden taxation which they have imposed, particularly on the electricity industry. The noble Baroness the Minister said that there are many people with central heating who spend less on average than people with other forms of heating. All right, there may be some in that category, but what happens to those who pay more than the average because of their central heating costs?
We got into a terrible muddle over heating costs in the last severe winter. We had the absurd situation where, if you lived in Scotland you had to be colder than if you lived in Kent, and if you lived in Sussex you had to be colder than if you lived in Cornwall. I hope that the Government will have a complete overhaul of this business of the prevention of hypothermia and of keeping people warm in severe weather, and avoiding the situation where if people keep warm they do not eat, because that is not good for them, either. Instead we have this quite incredible new rule with a date plucked out of the blue, as far as I can see: a date when I imagine many of your Lordships will be sitting in the

1483
warm sunshine of places healthier than this and not thinking about next winter's central heating bills. I leave that question with the noble Baroness. How will the public be informed? The new claimants had better get their letters in quickly or else, just because of a fluke in the date, they will miss this help.
12.30 p.m.
I understand that we are to take the vaccine order separately. Is that right?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yes.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, then I shall not refer to it at this point.
The changes in housing benefit are again very fundamental and I think should have waited until the new legislation, to which we look forward with dread and despair in the next Session. This is not the way to deal with matters which affect so many people. At least 460,000 people will lose their rate rebates and very many people will lose their housing benefits. This has to be put together because people's expenditure is not divided up into little parcels for the rates and the heating. All they know is that they have a lot of bills to pay.
I had hoped that we were going to have something more comprehensive. I know that before we have the next round of legislation the only way for the Government to bring in what are, on the whole, unhelpful measures is to use the procedure through which we are going today. But I can assure the Minister that these measures add up to a total of meanness and deprivation. However many people the Minister says will be helped, more will lose; otherwise it would not have been possible for the Minister in another place to give the figures that he did. He said that by these measures he was going to save the Government £2,000 million in a full year and that the extra expenditure would be much less than that.
I leave it there. I hope I have made it clear that we shall be continuing this argument for a long time, because we feel that fundamental principles are involved in spite of the casual nature of these orders.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for her explanation of these orders. As this is the last July when we shall be discussing up-rating orders, perhaps I may be permitted to say that this is the eleventh successive year in which I have had the privilege of taking part in these discussions. I do not know whether that is a record.
The noble Baroness told us that the cost of the up-ratings would be £2,000 million in a full year. She also had some interesting things to say about board and lodging, which are not actually covered by these orders; and like the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, I welcome the fact that there is to be a relaxation of the limits. This is a matter which has caused a great deal of concern and we shall want to analyse very carefully what the noble Baroness has said.
I return to the up-ratings which the noble Baroness said would cost £2,000 million in a full year. We ought to be clear that this is not largess. It is to make up for
1484
the rise in prices, this year standing at the higher figure of 7 per cent. As far as national insurance benefits are concerned—they are the bulk of the benefits which we are considering: not all of them by any means, but the bulk of them—they are financed by national insurance contributions on earnings for the most part with a reduced Treasury supplement these days in addition. Those earnings on which the contributions are based have risen faster than prices. Therefore there is a buoyant revenue available to help cope when there has to be an up-rating because of inflation. I say that just to put the matter in perspective, because sometimes it sounds as though the Government are being tremendously generous in providing in this case another £2,000 million per year.
The Government say that between November 1978 and November 1985 the retirement pension will be up 10 per cent. more than the cost of living and that there will in fact have been a real increase. I should like to ask how much this is due to the link with earnings which existed in the early years of the present Government as far as the pension is concerned, but which they subsequently abolished. The Government said when they abolished it that pensioners would share in increased general prosperity. The question that I should like to ask is: when will they share?
Earnings have been increasing faster than prices but nothing seems to happen to raise further the real value of the retirement pension. Of course the earnings-related pension, which it is proposed to abolish, would have helped in the future. Indeed, the substitution of a 4 per cent. contribution to private pensions, if that is eventually introduced, will help in the future. It is significant that in looking to the future in the Fowler Review the Government felt compelled to provide something over and above the basic pension for those who retire in the future, feeling it was not right for them to have only the basic pension. But what about those already retired? I very much regret that in the Fowler recommendations the increased contributions of those formerly contracted out are not to be used to increase the basic pension.
But for the break in the link with earnings, the single pensioner would be getting £3·90 a week more than he is and a married couple would be getting £6·15 per week more than they are. The increase in the rates taper above the needs allowance for housing benefit from 9 per cent. to 13 per cent. means that pensioner couples with incomes of more than £670 a year above the pension level of £3,187 per year will be worse off. The cuts begin to take effect at £3,857 per annum, which is rather a low point at which to begin making cuts—cuts which will in fact save £57 million in rates rebate.
We have already expressed from these Benches regret that child benefit is not to be increased by 7 per cent. but in fact by less than one-third of that—by 2·2 per cent. I should like to ask the noble Baroness what is the future for child benefit and what role do the Government see for it in the future. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, reminded us justifiably that child benefit replaced family allowances and the income tax allowances for children. It is true that child benefit today is worth considerably less than the combined value of child tax allowances and family allowances 30 years ago. Is child benefit to be run

1485
down further, as it is being run down this year? That, after all, is what is happening year by year to the £10 Christmas bonus for pensioners. When will the point be arrived at when the Government say that this is now too small to be maintained any longer?
Returning to the subject of the child's allowance, I should like to try, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, did, to see whether we can get the figures right. The noble Baroness had a go at them, and I shall have a go at them. The family income supplement has been increased by slightly more than 7 per cent. and the prescribed limit for older children has been increased. The child's needs allowance in housing benefit has also been increased. These increases are welcome; I say that without any reservation. However, is my arithmetic right? I calculate that the increase in family income supplement will cost £17 million per annum and that the increase in housing benefit child's needs allowance will cost £12 million per annum—£29 million in all—but that the saving on child benefit will be £175 million. It therefore appears that £146 million less will be spent on children. Have I given the right figure? If not, what is the right figure?
The trouble with family income supplement, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said, is that it has such a poor take-up—only about 50 per cent. whereas child benefit has a take-up of about 100 per cent. Analysis of low incomes in Volume III of the Green Paper shows that in 1982 about 700,000 families with children were headed by a wage-earner in the bottom fifth of income, but only about 200,000 families receive family income supplement today, compared with 158,000 in 1982.
Although there are a very large number of families in that low income bracket, less than half of them are receiving family income supplement. The others are receiving child benefit, and child benefit is now to be reduced in value. I should like to ask the noble Baroness: since family income supplement is taken into account in calculating housing benefit, how much of the increase in family income supplement will be lost from housing benefit?
We welcome the restoration of the 5 per cent. abatement of invalidity benefit but regret that there is no recompense for the loss of benefit while the abatement prevailed. This was a point we stressed during discussion of the Social Security Bill. There do not appear to be any matters of concern in the Government Actuary's report this year, but I will conclude by stressing again that we are very concerned indeed about the future of child benefit.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the points which have been made to me. I shall try to answer as many of them as possible without taking up too much time on this particular day. I shall write to those concerned in respect of any points I fail to mention.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, if she carefully reads my speech in Hansard, will see that a number of her questions have already been answered. As to her remarks concerning lack of consultation on the Green Paper and her suggestion that the measures we are considering today pre-empt the Green Paper, I could
1486
not agree with her less. My honourable and right honourable friends who conducted the reviews received a mass of evidence and now there is a short time for further consultation. The changes we are making, clearly, are broadly in the same direction. It would be absurd to make changes that were contrary to our proposals. Certainly we are carefully consulting before introducing our proposals in the next Session.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said also that the cuts in housing benefit pre-empted consultation. The proposed increase in the rates taper from 9 per cent. to 13 per cent. is not included in the orders before the House today. We are still consulting the local authority associations on this proposal. However, that change does not pre-empt consultation on the Green Paper. Given that changes were necessary to contain the cost of housing benefit, it made sense to make changes which were consistent with our long term proposals. The November changes will be a useful step in the right direction, but they do not pre-empt the radical structural changes which are proposed in the Green Paper.
I hope that the noble Baroness reads the Daily Mirror more carefully than she did yesterday's Hansard for another place, because it reports that the changes
"will cost over £2,000 million in a full year".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/7/85; col. 1356.]
The total extra cost of the up-rating will be £2 billion in a full year. The changes we have made involve both savings and extra expenditure. The net effect of the savings is to reduce the extra cost of the up-rating by about £250 million.
12.45 p.m.
The noble Baroness said that we need to consider the combined effect of the changes. I am glad to say we have some figures showing the effect of several of the changes on low-income families. Taking the effect of the reduced national insurance contribution announced in the Budget, the improvements in the family income supplement, the extra expenditure on the child's allowance in housing benefit and the lower increase in child benefit, a family with two children aged four and six earning £60 a week will be £2·3p a week better off. On the same earnings, a family with children aged 12 and 14 will be £2·70p a week better off.
The noble Baroness was concerned about the impact of cuts on housing benefits. We approached the changes very carefully and were determined that the poorest should be protected. First, no householder receiving supplementary benefit will be affected by the changes in housing benefit. They will not lose benefit. Secondly, no householder whose income is below the housing benefit needs allowance will lose benefit. Indeed, some 200,000 families with dependent children will gain from the real improvement to the dependent child's addition to the needs allowance.
Thirdly, only those with higher incomes will lose; that is, those with incomes above the needs allowance. Even here the smallest losses will be experienced by those only a little above the needs allowance. The largest reductions will generally apply to those whose incomes are the highest above the needs allowance.
The noble Baroness expressed concern about the central heating allowance and the date specified of 5th August when we propose to make the changes. Perhaps I may clarify the position. Anyone entitled to a central heating addition before 5th August will continue to receive one as long as he or she remains on benefit and eligible under the current rules. If someone has claimed and been awarded benefit before 5th August and is then found after 5th August to have been eligible for a central heating allowance continuously since before that date, then the addition will be paid with arrears. For the time being, we are continuing to publicise those additions in our leaflets.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked about the link with earnings. We are pledged to protect the value of basic pensions against rising prices. This we have achieved despite the present difficult economic climate. Of course we should like to do more, and we shall do so when resources permit. With regard to the first group of figures which the noble Lord gave, he is quite right. May I at the same time congratulate him on his stamina in achieving his eleventh anniversary of dealing with these matters? That is quite an achievement.
As to the impact of the proposed rates taper change on pensioners, average losses for pensioners will be less than those for other groups—about 47p per week as opposed to about 51p per week for other groups. No pensioner with income up to £10 above the basic retirement pension will lose, and pensioners will still benefit from the £2·50p per week increase for single pensioners, £4 a week for couples, in the state retirement pension.
I remind the noble Lord that it was this Government who made the Christmas bonus a regular statutory benefit. It costs more than £100 million a year, and to increase it now would therefore be costly. Once again, it is a question of priorities.
Lord Banks: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether it is intended to phase that out, as must surely happen if it is never increased to meet inflation?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords. I believe there was one year when the previous Government did not pay it—at least one year—but we have no intention of phasing it out.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Can the noble Baroness say when it was last up-rated? How much has this Christmas bonus been shrinking away?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not think that it has ever been up-rated. I believe it has been £10 from the start, bar the years when the noble Lord's Government did not pay it at all.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lady Jeger and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, on her introduction of this marathon list of up-ratings of social security benefits. I welcome, too, as they did, the changes announced in the board and lodging allowances, and her promise that a review will take place at, I think she said, the turn of the year.
1488
We certainly look forward to the outcome of that review and the discussions which will then take place.
My noble friend Lady Jeger mentioned this question of Friday statements. I go further and say that I object to the way that social security matters have been treated by the Government—or the usual channels, whoever is responsible—throughout the whole of this Session. They have been seriously skimped. The agenda has always been overloaded, and there has always been insufficient time for those of us who do not have the benefit of research resources, and so on, of our own. I have the impression that the whole issue has been handled in something of a rush and a panic.
This also emerges from some of the Government spokesmen when they make these statements. They seem almost to be making policy on their feet, as they go along, monitoring policy and changing policy as they are criticised and as debates develop. That is not the best way to deal with social security legislation. Therefore, I hope that we shall have proper opportunities in the next Session for the much more important debates which will take place on the outcome of the reviews, and that they will not be crushed up and skimped as has been the case in this Session.
In introducing these up-ratings the noble Baroness was at pains, as she always is, to intimate how much the Government are pledged to protect these benefits and to protect pensioners. That is fine if one has a very short memory. However, of all people pensioners have very good memories, and they, like me, query this protection of benefits. For example, they will remember the 1980 Acts. They will remember the 54-week year, when they lost two weeks' benefit because of the extension of the benefit year. They will remember the clawing back because of a mistake in the estimates as to the rate of inflation. Some was clawed back, in spite of the assurance that if the rate was the other way round and the estimate was below, there would be no making up of the losses. They remember, too, the break in the link between wages and prices, whichever was the higher, and they remember that they lost on those changes.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend giving way. I do not intend to make a speech, and that is why I ask him to give way. The noble Baroness made a merry quip about the one year when the Christmas bonus was not awarded. Will my noble friend accept that that was the year when pensioners were getting their pensions week by week, linked with the earnings level and not the inflation level?
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I had intended to mention that because I clearly remember that occasion.
As I was saying, pensioners remember when their pensions were linked with wages or prices, whichever was the higher. My noble friend Lord Ennals has just mentioned one of the consequences. There is another. Unfortunately, the latest figures for 1985 are not yet available so we are unable to make a direct comparison with the November increase. However, we can make a comparison with 1984. Had the link with the average earnings index for the whole economy continued, seasonally adjusted, in 1984 single persons

1489
would have received £38·85. In fact, single people received £35·80. Therefore, they could quite rightly argue that they lost a further £3·05 as a result of that breaking of the link. A married couple would have received £62·71 but instead received £57·30—a loss of £5·41. Those figures would be higher if one followed the same comparison through to 1985. Therefore, pensioners will have long memories as to the protection they have had since 1979.
As has already been mentioned, the £10 Christmas bonus gets smaller, in effect, every year that it remains at £10. Like the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I can envisage that it will disappear, like the death grant, maternity allowances, and so on, which are allowed to dwindle until they are worthless, which is the excuse for cutting them altogether. I would have far preferred the noble Baroness, who is at pains to protect pensioners' interests, to have announced this morning that the bonus would be increased by at least the rate of inflation. That would have been a move towards protection; and perhaps she will be able to reconsider that and advise us when she next speaks.
I now want to deal briefly with the housing benefit. I was able only to scribble a few notes while the noble Baroness was speaking, but she will know of my interest over many years in housing benefit. I have had a Motion set down for exactly twelve months seeking a debate on housing benefits. I do not know how long one has to wait while this process of choosing debates takes place, but I have been waiting for twelve months. Such a debate would enable me to draw attention to a whole series of anomalies which still exist in regard to housing benefits. It is true to say, in talking about protecting benefit, that the housing benefit scheme has been subject to cuts ever since it was introduced in 1983. Almost from the word "go" it began to be cut. In fact, in 1983 because of cuts 400,000 people lost entitlement altogether—that is, in the first year of operation. One and a quarter million people lost part of the benefit as a result of the cuts. The cuts amounted to £50 million and the ink was hardly dry on the Act introducing the benefit. The following year, 1984, a further 500,000 people lost entitlement altogether and 1·75 million people lost some of their benefit—in fact, quite a lot of it. The amount of those cuts was £215 million. Where is the protection element there? The scheme was introduced and, within months, cuts of almost £300 million were made.
I was not the only one to criticise this. The cuts were condemned by all the professionals and people involved, including the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee. At the time of these cuts the committee stated;
"It is clear that for many people the loss of income will be very severe. We join with all those who gave evidence to us in deploring the reductions, which we believe will have an unduly harsh effect on many individuals. It seems extraordinary that so much money should now be taken out of housing benefit within so short a time."
That comment was contained in the February 1984 report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, Cmnd. 9550. Therefore, I do not think that the people who are entitled to that benefit will accept that their position has been protected. It is exactly the opposite.
I understood that from this November the withdrawal rate—that is, the rate at which rate rebate
1490
is altered as income changes—was due to increase from 9p to 13p. I thought the noble Baroness said that that would not now take place, or that it is not included in to-day's up-rating. I shall be glad if she will confirm that. If it goes up from 9p to 13p we have to recall that in 1983 it stood at 6p, so the 13p will be more than twice what it was in March 1983. If this takes place—and I have no confirmation that it will not—many more thousands of people will lose benefit altogether and many more thousands will lose part of the benefit. I do not think that that is an example of protecting the benefit.
My noble friend Lady Jeger has already mentioned child benefit and the fact that it will not be increased by the rate of inflation. It goes up to £7 instead of £7·35. But even that is not the whole story with regard to child benefit on this protection theme about which I am talking. The tax allowances that have been changed in recent years have on the whole never applied to child benefit. Child benefit always lagged behind the tax allowances that were given over and above inflation. Had it risen in line with the higher increase in tax allowance in the past three budgets, it would now need to be raised to £8·25 instead of £7·35, so on that basis the increase in November 1985 would have been £8·25.
As well as that, if it had been operated in line with the allowances, as I have mentioned, whichever was the higher between the tax allowances each year since 1979, child allowance would now be standing at £8·65, so the real cut in child benefit is £1·65. Parents and people who are involved in that will not consider that the Government have protected their interests or their benefits.
I thought I should make those one or two comments following the noble Baroness's boast (for which I do not blame her because the boast is repeated everywhere) that the Government are protecting the benefits. I say the contrary is true: they are cutting them.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the remarks of the noble Lord. Lord Stallard. He raised two points which I should like to answer. He was concerned about cuts every year since the introduction of the housing benefit. The noble Lord conveniently overlooks the improvements we have made to the scheme. For example, on the introduction of the scheme we improved the tapers below the needs for pensioners by 12 per cent. on rates and 25 per cent. on rents. Over one million of the poorest pensioners gained an average of £1 per week. Last year we were able to make a real improvement, 50p, in the child's addition to the needs allowance. We shall be improving it again this November by 95p.
But the fact is that we do not have limitless amounts of money. Housing benefit expenditure has more than doubled in real terms since 1979. To hear noble Lords opposite talk, one would think there was a limitless supply of money. The fact is that they, the party opposite, put forward a series of expensive proposals in their manifesto at the last election without the slightest attempt to explain where all the money would be found.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that the increase in rates taper from 9 per cent. to 13 per cent. would not

1491
now take place. I think the noble Lord misunderstood my earlier comments on our proposal to increase the rates taper above the needs allowance from 9 per cent. to 13 per cent. I said the provision for this change was not included in the orders before the House today. That is because we are still consulting the local authority associations on the proposal. Subject to their views we shall be laying regulations providing for this change in the Recess. The change will come into effect in November.
With regard to the link with earnings, the present Government are not prepared to make promises to pensioners which the country cannot afford to meet. The link with prices means that the pension maintains its real value. Where we have limited resources, and when the number of pensioners has risen by 800,000 since the Government came into office, this represents a good deal for pensioners.
I think I have managed to answer nearly all the questions I have been asked. These matters are very important indeed. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to stay here until closing time going through the orders, line by line if noble Lords so wish. However, in conclusion, I should like to emphasise to your Lordships that in the period since November 1978 retirement pension will have increased by over 96 per cent. when the new rates come into force in November. Over the same period the rate of inflation is expected to have risen by about 86 per cent., giving a real increase to pensioners and others and linked long-term benefits. Surely this answers those who claim that we are not a caring Government. My Lords, I commend the orders to your Lordships.
Lord Banks: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down may I ask her a question arising out of her last point, which is about this 10 per cent. increase in pensions? I did ask her how much of that was due to the link with earnings, which is no longer there.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord on that matter.
On Question, Motions agreed to.

Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 Statutory Sum Order 1985
1.5 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd July be approved. [30th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Vaccine Damage Payments order be approved. As I have said, I am taking this order separately at the request of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, and of course I am glad to accede to his wishes. I am grateful to him for giving me prior notice of his questions.
This is an order which I am sure will be welcomed by the whole House, enabling, as it does, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to double to £20,000 the vaccine damage payment, which has stood at £10,000 since the Act was first introduced in 1979. Any successful claim made on or after 16th
1492
August, when the order comes into effect, will attract a £20,000 payment. In addition, we are making arrangements for the same sum to be paid in the case of any successful claims made on or after 18th June, when my right honourable friend first announced his proposal to increase the payment. We should have needed to increase the payment to £17,750 had we wanted to give the payment its original 1979 value. Thus the increase is significantly beyond what was called for by inflation. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd July be approved. [30th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend the Minister for having made arrangements for this order to be taken separately. I shall be brief, but that is not because it is not an extremely important matter. No doubt at the outset noble Lords on all sides of the House would welcome this order as the Government's immediate response to the mood of your Lordships' House when this matter was last raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and would acknowledge the debt which we all owe to my noble friend the Leader of the House for his good offices and timely intervention in this affair. I am sure that all noble Lords, wherever they sit, will endorse that sentiment.
But there is a problem of clarification. Clarification is sought of the draft and the Explanatory Note, which your Lordships will see at the end of the order. Unless Section 23 of the Social Security Act 1985 (which is not yet available, so one cannot see it) relates to the increment on the date on which the claim is made as distinct from the date of determination of a claim made before 16th August 1985, then there is nothing on the face of this order to exlude the increment from those determinations which are at this moment under consideration on claims made before 16th August, 1985.
I agree that if Amendment No. 5 to the Social Security Bill is now Section 23 of the Social Security Act, such increments on claims made before 16th August pending determination are inevitably excluded. They are excluded from increment, as stated in the Explanatory Note to the order. I am merely seeking confirmation from my noble friend the Minister because, unless Section 23 does what Amendment No. 5 appears to do, the order and the explanatory note would lie in conflict.
I have given my noble friend the Minister some notice of the questions that I now propose to put. First, would she agree that the Pearson Committee found that these brain-damaged children were in a special category of disability because the vaccine was administered in the public interest? Secondly, is my noble friend the Minister aware of any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to replace this statutory regime, which is temporary—it was introduced by the party opposite as a temporary measure—by implementing any of the recommendations of the Pearson report on strict liability irrespective of percentage disability (it is now 80 per cent. of nothing) and payment of true compensation analagous to that which would be awarded by a criminal injuries compensation board?

1493
Fortunately I have given notice of the question; otherwise it would not be very fair to ask it. If the answer is no, is my noble friend aware of any intention by Her Majesty's Government to review the workings of the vaccine damage tribunals, which have attracted a measure of criticism in the courts on judicial view? Thirdly and lastly, is my noble friend the Minister, in any event, aware of any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to consider the introduction of strict liability, on certain drugs and on certain vaccines, which excludes the development risk defence? Or is she aware of any current intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to adopt the concept of the draft directive in the European Community on product liability which will afford both the development risk defence and the state of the art defence?
I wonder whether, in this context, my noble friend the Minister can deal with these matters. With respect, they are related to the order that deals only with a temporary Act. These are therefore matters of public interest that have really no political content whatever.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am very grateful that the noble Lord. Lord Campbell of Alloway, rose to speak before I did. The noble Lord, with his legal knowledge, has mentioned one or two questions that I was going to raise. He has also had the courtesy, which I did not show, of indicating the nature of those questions to the noble Baroness the Minister. I cannot criticise myself more than that.
This is an interesting example of the way in which this House can change the course of events, even if only mildly. I do not believe that the Minister would doubt that it is largely because of the question that was tabled by my noble friend (if he does not mind being called a friend of mine; he has been a friend over many years) Lord Allen of Abbeydale and the strong feelings addressed not only by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, but also by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, by myself and by others on all sides of the House. I have already expressed my thanks to the Leader of the House for having picked up this issue and for conveying it, obviously, to those who take these decisions, so that we have now before us the result of our pressure.
I really want to know now the extent of the thanks that I owe to the noble Baroness the Minister, because I am a little doubtful. I wish therefore to put a few simple questions expressed in my own simple way. We have to examine matters from the time when the scheme was introduced in 1978. For instance, how many recipients have there been since the scheme was introduced? How many have therefore received a £10,000 award? I had intended to go on to ask how much the Government have paid out, but my simple arithmetic should enable me to work that out.
We expected, at the time that I introduced the Bill and the scheme, that it would be something of the order, at that stage, of between 600 and 800 people. I have to say that at the time that we were introducing the scheme I was not allowed to use the word "interim". That is because "interim" always implies that there is going to be something to follow. The
1494
Pearson Commission report had not been considered in detail and therefore I was not empowered to say, although I wanted to say, that this was an interim payment that would be followed by a system of compensation such as that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
My first question, as I say, is to ask how many recipients there have been. It would be interesting to know how many applications have been rejected. That would enable us to see roughly what was the proportion. But the first major question that I wish to put is whether the measure is to be backdated. It would appear from the wording as though it were not to be. If that was to be the case, it would be very unfair. Here we have a relatively small number of families responsible for a child, or even a young adult responsible for himself. After all, it was possible to claim right back to the beginning of the National Health Service—a considerable period of time. Those who received an award three, four or five years ago will not have had any of the benefit of the increase unless the noble Baroness is able to say that there will be some element of backdating. I am certain that there should be.
This leads me to my second question, which is to ask what is roughly the estimate of the Government of the number of people who will benefit from the extra payment. The number estimated to apply each year is quite small. The number of people who have been vaccine-damaged and whose disability is to the tune of 80 per cent. cannot be very large. So no doubt the Minister, with appropriate assistance, will be able to say roughly what is the number over the last two or three years. There was of course a rush when the scheme first came about. We have now reached a stage at which we can estimate roughly how many people each year are applying. If there is no back-dating, we are simply dealing with the number who are vaccine-damaged to the extent of 80 per cent. per year. That would enable the Government to estimate the cost to them of this order. In fact, as my last question was the same as the first question or the major question which was put to the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I hope that the Minister will reply to it.
We cannot go on for too many years without a proper system of compensation such as was recommended by the Pearson Commission. As I understand it, the Pearson Commission—and my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale will be able to correct me if I am wrong, because he was a member of it—sat for five years. I remember that at the time, because I was concerned about vaccine-damaged children, I had what could be described as secret meetings with the noble Lord who chaired the commission to find out what was going to happen, what they were going to say about vaccine damage, and also when the report was due to come out, because it was taking so long. I was extremely anxious that we should get at least an element of extra support to those families who have suffered so much. On the last occasion the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, argued that the policy was simply for the protection of the individual. I argued—and I certainly argued at the time when the legislation was introduced and I carried it through another place—that vaccination is public police. It has

1495
always been said that there are certain circumstances in which a doctor will advise that vaccination should not take place. For example, he may advise someone not to have a vaccination if that person has signs of 'flu, and so on. However, normally it would be wise to be vaccinated.
The batch of questions which I have asked all hang together. I do not feel that I should necessarily have given notice of them, because most of them are simple, factual questions, the answers to which no doubt the department has readily at its fingertips.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept my apologies for having spoken ahead of the Official Opposition? I intended no discourtesy.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if there were anything for which to apologise I would of course accept the noble Lord's apology. However, I do not think that there is anything for which to apologise. I said right at the beginning that I was pleased that the noble Lord had spoken before me, because he dealt very adequately with an important issue which I had planned to raise; but I would probably have done so inadequately, bearing in mind the noble Lord's legal background and knowledge which I do not possess.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, as some reference has been made to me perhaps I may say a few words. It is slightly strange that we should be discussing this order made under powers which are not currently available to us. However, far be it from me to complain about the speed with which the order has been drawn up and presented.
I welcome the opportunity of thanking the Government for the concession which they have made and for the expedition with which the law was amended. It has been pointed out that the House of Lords can claim credit for persuading the Government that there was a case for change—a fact which readers of the recent articles in the Sunday Times and listeners to the BBC programmes may have found rather hard to identify. While I welcome the concession, I hope that the Government will not think that this is the end of the story. There are other things wrong with the 1979 Act—if it survives.
Although this is not the occasion for developing the argument for a more substantial change in the law in the direction of making the appropriate public authority strictly liable in tort without proof of fault, nevertheless it is only right to put the Government on notice that, at a suitable opportunity, I hope to return to this major theme. Who knows?—perhaps on that occasion we may even be told why it is that, in the interests of the community, it is possible to hand out payments to victims of crime comparable with those which are awarded by the courts, but not to do anything remotely similar for those who suffer serious damage in consequence of vaccination, also carried out in the interests of the community, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has suggested, notwithstanding the points to the contrary which Government spokesmen have made in the various debates which we have had on this topic.
However, I return to the draft order. I suppose I was in Government circles too long not to appreciate the
1496
reasons the powers have not been made retrospective, although I regret it. I am bound to say that the amendment as drafted in Section 23 of the Social Security Act—if, indeed, we have the right words—seems to be unnecessarily mean in relating the award to the time of the claim and not to the date of payment. However, I understood the noble Baroness to say that, notwithstanding that legal provision, there were to be ex gratia payments in respect of applications made after the date of the announcement in this House. I may not have understood the Minister correctly and therefore perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to tell us again just what concessions have been made in this direction.
As for the rest, I await with great interest the replies to the various questions which have been posed, particularly that posed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in relation to the products liability agreement which we were discussing in another context here yesterday and on which we are hoping to hear more from the Government before we go away for the summer break. Apart from that, there can be no doubt that we should approve the order.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on this important matter. I am glad to say that the answer to the first point raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is a simple Yes; the amendment does what my noble friend requires. As regards the first point, of which my noble friend was good enough to give me notice, my answer is, "No, my Lords". My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in his reply to a debate on compensation for personal injuries, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on 8th May this year, made it quite clear that the Government do not accept the recommendations of the report of the Pearson Commission on this matter. I do not think that I could usefully add to what my noble and learned friend said on that occasion.
As noble Lords will be aware, we have just started the biggest-ever survey into the needs of disabled people and it is sensible to await the outcome of that survey before considering further arrangements for compensation for this or any other group of disabled people. In the meantime, this increase represents significant extra help for this particular group of people, the vast majority of whom are likely to qualify for severe disablement allowance when they reach the age of 16 years.
In answer to my noble friend's second question, I should first like to put the matter in perspective. The seven vaccine damage tribunals have between them heard some 1,360 cases since the scheme began and there has been very little criticism. What criticism there has been as regards the three cases which have been subject to judicial review has, I understand, been concerned with the failure to give adequate reasons for a decision. The decision itself is of course a medical one.
As noble Lords may be aware, the 1983 Act—the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act—set up a new system of adjudication with the prime aim of increasing the expertise of adjudicating bodies. The Act established that the offices of president of social security appeals

1497
tribunals and medical tribunals, including those for vaccine damage, are part of this system. I am sure that the president, His Honour Judge Byrt, will have noted what criticism has been made and will have noted the remarks of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway.
With regard to the third question my noble friend asked, I am pleased to be able to say that the directive on the approximation and administrative provisions of all member states concerning liability for defective products was adopted yesterday evening by the Council of Ministers in the EEC. The directive, which must be implemented within three years, covers all products, including pharmaceuticals, and will make producers throughout the Community strictly liable for damage caused by defective products that they put into circulation.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for his kind remarks addressed to my noble friend the Leader of the House. The noble Lord asked me some lovely short questions. First, the number of recipients at £ 10,000, and the answer is 800. I have written down his second question as, "How many rejected applicants?". I can tell him that the total number of applicants, including those rejected is 3,096 up to April 1985.
Thirdly, the noble Lord asked whether it was going to be retrospective. My answer to that is, No. That answer also includes the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. We have accepted that the people who claim now should have a revalued sum in the light of the passage of time since the Act was first introduced in 1979. However, those who claimed earlier did so on the basis of the Act as it was, and £10,000 was the sum then. Most of these people have already had their payments. It would be unfair to pay the increased amount to those who claimed some time ago but whose claims have not yet been settled.
The fourth question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was approximately how many people will benefit each year. The answer is that mercifully the number of children found on the balance of probabilities to have been severely disabled as a result of vaccination is not large. The numbers are difficult to estimate, but we would expect to make about 20 to 25 payments in a full year, some of which will be from earlier claims and they will continue to receive the £10,000 payment. The cost will be about an extra £120,000 a year. I am grateful to those who have taken part in this brief debate. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1985
1.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before you on 11th July, be approved. Before referring to the order itself, it may be helpful to review briefly the recent history of the Northern Ireland gas industry. The industry has been in relentless decline since the mid-1970s when its
1498
dependence on oil-based feedstock for the manufacture of towns gas first became a major problem as the price of oil began to soar. Added to this difficulty were the drawbacks that derive from the industry's fragmented structure, comprising as it does 13 separate gas undertakings, nine of which are owned and operated by local authorities and four by private companies. The economic frailty of the industry is emphasised by the fact that it now accounts for less than 3 per cent. of the Province's energy supply to final users, and is utterly dependent on an escalating level of Government support currently amounting to £12 million per year—and that is an average of 70p a therm.
In July 1979, the then Under-Secretary of State in another place with responsibility for energy matters in Northen Ireland set out the basic framework within which the Government's policy towards energy in Northern Ireland in general, and the gas industry in particular, would evolve. The Under-Secretary pointed out that natural gas from the British mainland could not be provided at a competitive price in Northern Ireland without massive support from public funds, and that the Government had concluded that for the foreseeable future public expenditure of the order required could not be justified in terms of additional security of energy supply, the price at which natural gas could be economically provided or the total number of consumers who might hope to benefit. In the circumstances, there could be no jusitification for supporting the loss-making town gas undertakings in the Province on a continuing basis.
In December 1980, however, the industry's closure programme was effectively suspended when it became known that a supply of natural gas might be available from the Kinsale gas field in the Republic of Ireland. Over the next three years discussions with the authorities in the Republic were aimed at determining whether this source of supply could provide prospects of financial viability for the gas industry in Northern Ireland. These discussions culminated in an announcement by Government in October 1983 that agreement, in principle, had been reached for the construction of a natural gas pipeline from the Republic to the Province. This agreement was contained in a memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland Governments and was followed by detailed negotiations on a legally-binding contract for supply.
While negotiations on this contract were proceeding, factors developed which rendered the project economically unviable for Northern Ireland. These factors included a marked increase in the price of gas from the Republic over the original projected price; this was calculated to add almost one-fifth to the gas purchase price throughout the life of the project. The prospects for the project were further diminished by the results of surveys on consumer demand, carried out for planning and operational purposes, which estimated total demand about one-third less than the previous forecast.
Despite further discussions with the Republic, it was not possible to secure agreement on a revised purchase price, and in September 1984 the Government reluctantly concluded that the project could not proceed. It is a matter of regret to the Government that

1499
circumstances did not permit the continuation of this enterprise. We must of course respect the judgment of the Irish Government regarding the minimum price at which it can afford to sell natural gas. At the same time, Her Majesty's Government did not feel able to proceed with a project which would, far from being a commercial success, make heavy calls on public expenditure resources at the expense of other priorities in Northern Ireland.
In announcing the abandonment of the project on 6th September last, the Government made clear that they were prepared to receive proposals for a viable, commercial gas industry. In response to that invitation, a joint working group from the industry announced that it would put forward a revised Kinsale gas scheme for consideration. Ministers permitted the accumulation for a further six months of subsidy, at approximately £1 million per month, while the group developed their proposals.
Once these became available they were subjected to a thorough appraisal, with the Department's advisers exploring points of difficulty with the group's own consultants. The Government were hopeful that the scheme might represent a way forward, but in the end we were forced to conclude that the proposals did not begin to offer the prospect of a commercially sound industry. In particular, the scheme did not overcome the fundamental problems of a purchase-price formula for gas which effectively made it uneconomic. At the same time the plan obliged us to assume that annual sales would increase tenfold over 20 years. This is more than 50 per cent. greater than the previous highest forecast and must be set against the background of an industry which in the great city of Belfast alone lost some 10,000 consumers, or one in seven of its total last year.
When we took into account the fact that, in the event of failure, financial guarantees from the Government amounting to some £70 million would be called, following which the Government would still be faced with the cost of closure, it became clear that rejection of the plan was the only responsible and honest course for the Government to take.
In the absence of continuing public subsidy all but one of the Province's gas undertakings have decided to close. There is no legal obligation on the Government to finance the closure process but, through this draft order, we propose to provide funds which will permit closure to be planned and orderly and which will minimise hardship to employees and consumers alike. The Government's terms for support will allow undertakings to pay enhanced redundancy terms up to British Gas Corporation levels; consumers will receive grants to permit conversion to alternative fuels.
The estimated cost of this package of support is £97 million. This figure has been calculated on the basis of our discussions with undertakings and takes into account detailed technical advice from the British Gas Corporation. The British Gas Corporation has been commissioned by the Department of Economic Development to advise and to assist on the rundown process and the corporation's normal practice on disconnection and purging of mains will be followed. I must assure your Lordships that safety
1500
considerations will be paramount, and our estimates of cost reflect this priority.
If I may now briefly turn to the order itself, your Lordships will see that the draft gas order has been brought as a whole before Parliament to permit the orderly rundown and closure of those undertakings which decide to cease operations. The most important features of the order are three in number.
First, Article 4 provides for the removal of the statutory obligation to supply which is, at the moment, laid on 10 of the 13 undertakings. For reasons both of economy and of public safety it is important that the gas distribution systems are closed down in a controlled and orderly manner. To accomplish this, the undertakings need legal power to terminate the supply of gas to individual consumers and, where necessary, to enter premises in order to ensure that this termination is accomplished in a technically competent and safe manner. Articles 4 and 7 between them provide the necessary powers. Direct financial support of the undertakings is necessary to enable them to continue operations while an orderly rundown takes place and to help the undertakings meet the direct cost of closure, including any outstanding liabilities. Payment will be made under Article 6 to cover these requirements.
Finally, the third point to which I wish to draw attention is that Article 8 provides for a scheme of assistance to gas consumers faced with the cost of converting or replacing their town gas appliances. Since publishing the order, the Government have announced their proposals for this scheme: domestic consumers will receive a grant which is deemed sufficient to cover the least-cost conversion or replacement of their existing gas equipment. Commercial and industrial consumers will receive 30 per cent. grant on the same basis but they may also be eligible for energy conservation grants. Consumers in this category may also be eligible for tax relief on essential expenditure.
Many of us are saddened at the prospect of the closure of the Northern Ireland gas industry. Nevertheless, your Lordships will agree that we must face the fact that, given the extent of its plight and the absence of any hope of viability, closure of most of the undertakings is inevitable. It is essential that we have this order on the statute book so that those undertakings which have opted for closure can do so in a planned, orderly and safe manner. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on llth July be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
1.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, this is a very important order indeed because it assumes the removal of the gas industry, lock, stock and barrel (except possibly for the purged pipes in their grave), from Northern Ireland. Many people believe very strongly that this should not happen.
The procedure for considering orders of major significance to Northern Ireland (and this is in that category of orders), is wholly inadequate. Never was this more apparent than today. We are spending public money and public time on an order which we cannot amend, which we cannot alter or reject. This means that Parliament is having legislation foisted

1501
upon it by the Executive, and the Executive are in the greatest hurry. Because they are in the greatest hurry the legislation may sometimes be inferior. Not only in the interests of Northern Ireland but in the interests of Parliament, members of all parties want substantial alterations to the system of legislating for the Province so long as the Province is subject to direct rule.
I voice this conviction. My noble friend Lord Underhill has voiced it since I have been a Member of the House and it is a conviction that I am sure will be voiced by other Members this afternoon. We voice it today in the hope that our deep unease will be noted by those in authority. But meanwhile it behoves us to make every possible use of this round of debate, formal and ritualistic though it may be.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for the background to the order and for his very clear explanation of its provisions. As the noble Lord pointed out, from about 1977 there have been major uncertainties facing the gas industry in the Province. That point should be emphasised because this is a factor which should not be overlooked in seeking a proper explanation for the decreasing demand for gas in Northern Ireland, although there are other factors. It now appears that as long ago as 6th September 1984 the Government had taken this decision to kill the gas industry in the Province, but this was not then public knowledge. It was locked in secrecy within the department.
The then Minister of State advised the industry on 6th September 1984 to take stock of the position, but he also went on to declare that the Government would he glad to receive representations about the future. The industry assumed from that statement that there could he a future for the industry. Indeed, who is to blame them from coming to that conclusion? So in good faith the public construed the statement of 6th September 1984 to be an open invitation to provide options for the future of the industry, provided that those options did not involve continuing subsidy.
But since 18th April this year we have known that that statement was misleading. The present Minister of State, giving evidence to the Assembly on 18th April, said this:
"In any case the decision was not made now (in 1985). As I have said clearly, it was made on 6th September".
So that is when, how and where the lid came off the truth. The Minister of State, at the Assembly Committee, spoke of the Government standing by that decision and described how the Government had never deviated from the September decision.
If the September 1984 statement was intended to be misleading, that would be the gravest stricture to level at the Government. I do not level that criticism at the Government. I believe that the then Minister of State was honourable and possibly trying to be kind to the Province. On the strength of the 1974 Statement the gas industry, as the Minister has explained, set up a working party representing the gas undertakings and the gas industry trade unionists and advised by experts of international standing; namely Coopers and Lybrand, no strangers to the Government and no strangers to Northern Ireland, and Congas Engineering of Canada. With commendable speed, the working group produced its own revised Kinsale gas scheme for the industry, and an advance copy of this scheme was rushed to the department in February.
1502
There then followed a series of meetings between the DED officials and the working group consultants, but not with the working group itself. Indeed, as almost an afterthought, the Minister of State told the Assembly that the officials had spent seven hours talking to the consultants who compiled the report. Seven hours was not long enough. Then, within five or six months, it was decided to extinguish the hope which the Government had offered the previous September. It had been arranged for the representatives of the working group to meet the Minister of State on 11th April 1985 to discuss this scheme. That meeting did not take place. The Government were in a hurry and on Good Friday, when Parliament was not sitting and probably the Assembly was not sitting, the Minister met the working party and pronounced that their rescue plan was unviable. Those are the facts.
However, the fact also remains that the working party had advanced a prima facie case for an alternative proposal to the Kinsale scheme. Compared with the original Kinsale project, it was a much scaled-down project, concentrating, in phase 1, on supplying Newry and the Greater Belfast area. Nevertheless, it had many things going for it. It would have given immediate access to 90 per cent. of the Northern Ireland gas market at a much reduced capital cost to the United Kingdom Government; it would have shown a surplus of £159 million over a period of 20 years; it would have saved about 400 jobs in a Province where unemployment is very high; and it could have been the base for further development.
The Minister of State, when he appeared before the Assembly on 18th April, may have given the impression that the rescue plan was based on hope, and no more, to sell more gas. The revised plan was of course based on hope to a certain extent; but it was also based on judgment and calculation. That was acknowledged by Professor Black, the department's trusted expert of many years' standing. The issues involved in the revised plan are complex and the consultants who advised the working group were cautious. The fact that the working group's revised scheme rested on at least four major but not unreasonable assumptions, each in turn involving a number of other assumptions, illustrates the complexity of the matter which was disposed of by the department in six or seven weeks.
Perhaps I may remind the House that the scheme was based on assumptions as to purchase price at the border; the capital costs; the level of consumer demand, in particular over the initial eight-year period; and the financing of the scheme and the source of finance. These four major assumptions have been attacked by the Minister of State. But they have not been demolished. Indeed, sometimes the Minister of State's attack was misconceived, and it demonstrated that on this occasion he had not fully mastered the details of the plan.
Considering the significance of this decision for the people in Northern Ireland, we on these Benches assert that the revised plan should have been presented to a body of experts outside the department for analysis, testing and report. With the greatest respect to the officials in the department and to Professor Black, the necessary testing could not in our view be undertaken by department officials in the course of seven hours'

1503
discussion with the working group's consultants, or in the course of seven weeks, or possibly at all. Fresh minds should have been brought to bear on the revised plan. I will explain why. This was necessary because we know that the department, since September last year, had adopted a line; and experience tells us that once a department adopts a line, it usually sticks to it. That is why it was necessary, in our submission, to bring in outside experts' fresh minds.
In any event, in our view the Government would be wrong to base their decision on the financial viability of the revised scheme alone, without having due regard to other economic and social considerations. They should take into account the considerable doubts, including the unease of the Northern Ireland Economic Council, about the reliability of the department's estimates of the substantial costs to be incurred in closing down the industry.
I say to the Minister, with the greatest respect, that his speech did not reflect at all the unease which has been expressed in the Province that the estimates of the department are far too low. Those who have inquired into the costing believe that the ultimate figure will be much nearer £147 million than the Government's estimate of £97 million. The Government should have taken into account the effect of the decision on the Northern Ireland economy generally and the extent to which it will imperil other businesses, maybe small businesses; and its effect on the desirability of maintaining a fuel choice for consumers, at a reasonable price.
They should have taken fully into account the painful consequences for the men and women who are employed in the industry and the consequences for groups of consumers, such as the elderly and the handicapped, who are very heavy users of gas. Indeed, Age Concern has been moved to circulate briefing material showing how this decision will adversely affect elderly people in the Province.
2 p.m.
Looking to the future, full regard should be given to the possible discoveries of natural gas reserves elsewhere. We would wish to know whether British Gas is likely to find commercial reserves of natural gas under the waters of Morecambe Bay. If the reports we have heard turn out to be promising, would it be feasible to lay a pipeline from Morecambe Bay to Northern Ireland? When the Government are so concerned to seek a solution to the immense problems of the Province, they should have taken into account such political considerations as the effect of this decision on Irish confidence in Anglo-Irish joint ventures in the future, bearing in mind also that the Kinsale initiative originated in the Republic in 1982 or 1983.
All these factors should have been placed in the scales if the Government were to arrive at the right decision, but we feel—and it can be no more than a feeling—that inadequate attention has been paid to them. We therefore feel that the Government have arrived at a decision which may not stand the test of time.
This afternoon, however, we cannot reject the order or amend its provisions. Nevertheless, can we at this
1504
eleventh hour seek to influence events? Since this order was laid before Parliament there has been one new and relevant development. We know that Lloyds merchant bank have shown an interest in financing a pipeline project to import natural gas from Kinsale to the Province. That was reported in the Belfast Telegraph on 19th July, and it has been reported in Oilman, the weeky newsletter circulated among business interests in Britain.
A bank spokesman has indicated that it might take a few months to complete the evaluation: if the evaluation is successful and private funding becomes available, that will be a new factor of considerable significance. When the Minister of State gave evidence to the Assembly, he was very quick to point out that the rescue plan did not provide for private funding; but this is now a possibility, even if no more than that. Therefore, the question to the Minister is whether the Government will delay the execution of this order for a few months to give Lloyds merchant bank a reasonable opportunity to complete their evaluation.
According to the Minister, the cost of delaying execution will be £1 million per month. That is relatively small beer in the context of the costing of the run-down of the industry, which the Government put at £75 million and others put at some £140 million. If the Ministers tells the House that the Government cannot agree to maintain the status quo for a few months, will he also then explain to the House why there should be this extraordinary hurry? Has there been another secret decision that, cost what is may, whoever offers the money, the Province is to be deprived of a gas industry? If so, it is the only comparable Province in the whole of Europe which would be without a gas industry.
However, the order is here to stay, and this compels me to mention briefly three matters which are not dealt with in the regulations. First, there is no express reference to the need for a safety policy. Regulations 5 and 6 refer specifically to the efficient and orderly rundown of the industry. In fairness to the Minister, today he used the words "safe" or "safely" three times, but neither word appears anywhere in the regulations. If there is to be a run-down we want it to be safe, because we have been taught to be cautious with gas. We know how it can occasionally lead to explosions, causing dreadful damage. Should there be an explosion during the next three or four years in consequence of the run-down of the industry, people will ask: who is to be blamed for it? Is there a clear answer to that question? Has the department addressed its mind to the need for a safety policy which will apply to the innumerable points along the pipeline? Will there be a adviser on safety policy at each of the undertakings to be closed down? Perhaps the Minister can give us some reassurance.
Secondly, there is no reference in the order or the regulations, express or implied, to an appeals procedure in the event of a householder being dissatisfied with the financial assistance he or she has been offered; but we can readily appreciate that there will be many problems arising in assessing and determining the financial assistance payable in the circumstances of the case. On the 26th June in the other place the Minister of State said that the department was considering whether there should be a

1505
right of appeal. Four weeks later we still do not know the answer to the question. Why is this proving such a complex matter upon which to come to a decision? If the department can come to a speedy decision on the revised plan it should certainly be able to come to a decision upon whether or not there is to be an appeals mechanism. We want the Minister to know that we attach importance to the need for an appeals procedure, and a speedy one.
Thirdly—and this is my final point—if ultimately the critics are proved to be correct and the costs of running down the industry are in excess of £97 million, where will the additional funds come from? Will they come from the Treasury or will this be another burden to be imposed on the Northern Ireland budget?
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his introduction of this order. Nonetheless, it must be made clear from the outset that we on these Benches, as well as the Labour Opposition as explained so well by the noble Lord, Lord PrysDavies, consider that the whole position with regard to the gas industry in Northern Ireland looks to us like being mishandled. The Explanatory Note to the order sums it all up when it says:
"The purpose of this order is to facilitate the rundown and closure by gas undertakers of their gas undertakings".
The right honourable gentleman Mr. Peter Archer, speaking in committee in another place on 26th June put it well, I believe, when he said:
"The Opposition are not seeking a post-mortem. We want a consultation about treatment while the patient is still alive".
We should like to be associated with that comment.
The order was in due course negatived in Committee by 18 votes to 10. But the Government have pressed on with it in the full House of the other place regardless. It would hardly be acceptable that your Lordships' House should reject outright an order passed by the elected Chamber. But I shall later come back to the question of whether some delay for further consideration might be possible.
"Profitability" is a fair word, but it is clear that the gas industry in Northern Ireland would need propping up for the foreseeable future if it were to continue. Our argument is that we think £12 million per annum—which the Government quote as the current subsidy required to continue to run the present gas industry—should be made available at least until some more happy solution to the present impasse can be found. The noble Lord has mentioned that some £97 million will be necessary for compensation anyway—and this figure might well have to be bigger—and added to this is the extra cost, as well as the human tragedy of numbers added to the unemployed.
I have had, as have other noble Lords, a personal appeal from the Gas Industry Joint Working Group to help if possible to persuade the Government, as they say:
"to re-examine vigorously the possibility of retaining a gas service for the people of Northern Ireland before irrevocable steps are taken to close it."
I think significant are the words "irrevocable steps". I accept that there are many problems facing the gas industry in the Province. There are no easy answers. But we feel that there are two powerful reasons for
1506
suspending action at the present. First, great inconvenience will be caused in a part of the United Kingdom which is already disadvantaged. Secondly, the dangerously high level of unemployment can only be substantially increased by the proposed closures.
It seems probable, so far as can at present be estimated, that the compensation payable to houseowners who are forced to convert from their favoured use of gas to some other form of heating or cooking will be inadequate and that considerable hardship may well be caused. I shall come back to this.
In a telling reply to a Question for Written Answer on 18th June of this year the Minister of State, Dr. Rhodes Boyson, said:
"In disconnecting consumers from supply it is not the existing practice of the industry to remove pipes and fittings on private property once they have been purged and made safe".—[Official Report, Commons; col. 99.]
They may have been, "purged and made safe"; but all the inconvenience of unwanted equipment will remain and conversion to the use of solid fuel would often need major adaptation to a building. The sum of £ 12 million is indeed a sizeable subsidy required to prop up an ailing industry, but we believe that the damage that would be caused by withdrawing this payment and running down the gas industry in Northern Ireland should be seen as unacceptable.
I suspect that the Government made up their mind on this issue some time ago and that further consultation has been only cosmetic—the case not really open to further consideration. As I mentioned earlier, the lack of confidence expressed by the Northern Ireland Committee in the other place was ignored and the Northern Ireland Assembly found that the order was duly announced only after it had risen for the Recess and it had no opportunity to debate it. In view of the great concern about this order and the serious opposition it has so widely aroused, I now ask the Minister whether it is possible to delay this order—the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also raised this point—to pause and consider further. Who knows what opportunities for the use of natural gas might yet arise if irrevocable steps are not taken prematurely.
Added to that, I have been approached by Age Concern, as have many other noble Lords, to see whether there is a possibility that the arrangements for compensation can be much more fully debated in Parliament than is at present proposed. It seems to me that unfair arrangements could lead to devastating dissatisfaction and even despair. If we were debating a Bill, the safeguards would have to be much more readily open to scrutiny. Can the noble Lord. Lord Lyell, when he comes to reply, reassure me on this point? We are not happy with this order but we shall not oppose it when the Motion is put. I should be grateful for answers to my two questions.
2.15 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I have a personal interest in this subject, though not of course a financial one, since a gas pipeline was laid some time ago through our small family farm near Dublin. We understood that it was to bring gas from Kinsale to Belfast. I have therefore been thinking for a year or more what a splendid instance this would be of North-South cooperation. But now the whole project is apparently to

1507
be scrapped. There is keen disappointment, I understand, in Irish Government circles. An agreement for the supply of the gas was apparently initialled by the British Government. There was, I understand, to be a fluctuating price tied to the price of oil, and I am told that the proposed price has never moved beyond the agreed range. That is not quite what the Minister said and I wonder whether there may be some misunderstanding there which can be cleared up.
Can my noble friend Lord Lyell tell us in due course whether in working out the agreed fluctuating price there was some miscalculation which has caused the British Government to go back on their word? Furthermore, can he tell us whether this question of abolishing gas supplies in the North has been debated by the Northern Ireland Assembly? There has been a tendency to regard the Assembly as something of a failure, through the non-co-operation of some of the Northern Irish parties. If its views are to be flouted on a matter of this kind, are we not making a farce of a body of which so many hopes were entertained? I understand that there is an agreement between all parties in the North, both Nationalist and Unionist, in favour of the proposed economic co-operation with the Republic in bringing the gas from Kinsale.
I am told by the joint working group of the Northern Irish gas industry that the supply of natural gas from Kinsale could be introduced at a cost of no more than £3.94 million by utilising available EC grants and loans and, at the same time of course, replacing the expensive methods used at present to produce gas from naphtha. On a present labour force of 1,000, I am told that the Kinsale gas would preserve 600 jobs, though 400 people would become redundant instead of the whole 1,000 jobs disappearing as proposed by this nefarious statutory instrument. Can my noble friend in due course confirm these figures?
Can he tell us whether an advance payment of £5 million has already been made to the Republic, which will be forfeited if the Kinsale project does not go ahead? Does he agree that the Department of Economic Development has estimated that the closure of the gas service in the North would cost as much as £97 million in compensation and that even this enormous figure has been challenged as much too low because of factors left out of account? Is there any reason why the North of Ireland should not have the benefit of natural gas enjoyed by this island of Britain, by the Republic and by other European countries? Bodies such as Co-operation North have received widespread support from all of us. Is not our praise of their work no more than insincere lip service if such a measure as the ending of the Kinsale scheme is to be accepted without question?
In spite of the sincere efforts made by Westminster and Whitehall to help with the problems of the Republic and the North and their relationship in living with the Border, is not this wretched order yet another example of the deaf ear so often turned in the past at Westminster and Whitehall to Irish pleas, whether Unionist or Nationalist? Is not this order a step backwards in the journey towards achieving harmony through economic co-operation?
We are apparently not at this stage allowed to vote against the order, but if my noble friend could at least
1508
give an assurance that the Government will look at the question again and take all these factors into account, before plant is irreversibly destroyed and pipes irreplaceably ripped out, he would make me a great deal happier. I should like to think that the North of Ireland might after all not be deprived of the use of a great natural resource which belongs to the island of Ireland as a whole.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I think that the proof of the very great importance with which the House regards this order is the number of speakers present on a Friday afternoon who wish to take part in this debate. Before I make one or two points I should like to apologise to the Minister in case I am unable, because of the debate having started a little later than I thought, to be here when he replies. I look forward to reading his responses in Hansard.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies has already enumerated the very serious consequences that the passing of the order will have on the people of Northern Ireland. My noble friend has also traced the whole series of events which led to the Government's decision to close Northern Ireland's gas industry. Likewise, he has described the extraordinary episode whereby the report of the joint working group set up by the industry was rejected by the Minister of State in another place without his having fully discussed it with that group. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has already mentioned this. My noble friend has made the seriousness of this measure very clear. If half the people of Wales were suddenly denied the use of gas, and if one thinks of what would follow in the way of a Bill, in the way of amendments, in the way of discussion, in the way of debate and in the way of argument, it brings home the implications of the order that is before us today. One cannot make too much of this point.
However, I should like to stress my own concern that the people of Northern Ireland should be denied the choice of the use of gas. Secondly, I should like to question whether the reasons for closing the industry were valid and deplore the manner in which the Government have carried out the whole exercise. Lastly, I should like to ask the Minister a few questions about compensation for present gas users, about the provision for appeals by dissatisfied households and about how the safety standards will be applied. I know that my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies has made these points too, but I should like to ask the Minister one or two specific questions.
First, there seems to be a considerable discrepancy between what the Government think will be the total cost of closing down the gas industry in Northern Ireland and what others, such as the Northern Ireland Economic Council and the joint working group, think. It would seem that against the Government's estimate of £97 million which has already been mentioned, independent sources put the figure as high as between £143 million and £155 million.
Those same sources believe that the Government have underestimated the cost on three different counts. First, in regard to the conversion of public housing to new fuels, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive puts the figure at £5·8 million higher than the Government estimate. Secondly, the Government are

1509
working on the assumption that the service will be closed by 1987–88, whereas the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's plans are to finish conversion by 1990–91, or in 1992. Each year of delay will cost the Department of Economic Development an additional £12 million.
Thirdly, the Government have admitted an advance payment of £5 million to the Republic of Ireland, to which the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, was referring. Under the Department of Economic Development's own previous plan, that sum of £5 million will be lost if the service closes. If the higher estimated costs prove to be correct, then, as my noble friend Lord PrysDavies asked, from what source will the Government find the additional money? That is a very important question and one which must be put to the Minister today.
Perhaps I may say a final word about the Northern Ireland consumers. In order to understand the implications to the Northern Ireland consumers, it is necessary to consider them as forming two separate groups, each of which will be affected very differently by the loss of the gas service. The first group is made up of 15,000 consumers who are tenants of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Although they will lose the use of gas, they will be fortunate in being offered a full fuel choice, including oil, electricity, bottled gas, etc. The cost of any redecoration resulting from conversion will be met by the executive. Finally, I understand that a system of dealing with complaints will be set up within the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. That is the first group affected.
The second group will be less well provided for. They are the 80,000 consumers who are either owner-occupiers or private tenants who will be compensated by the Department of Economic Development on the basis of the least cost conversion, which the Minister was good enough to explain to the House. This means that they will be denied a wide choice unless they bear the additional cost themselves of choosing a more expensive fuel. Moreover, they will receive nothing towards the cost of any necessary redecoration. Finally, it is not apparent from the draft order that householders who are justifiably discontent with the way in which their conversion has been carried out will have any right of appeal. Again, my noble friend made a point of asking the Minister about that aspect of the issue.
Further, it is not yet known whether voluntary housing associations, which normally work to the standards of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, will be recompensed at the same level as the executive consumer or the private consumer. I shall be grateful if the Minister will say how the voluntary housing associations will be looked after.
There can be no doubt as to the difference between the various ways in which different groups of householders will be affected. It seems to me to be a great anomaly and injustice that they should be dealt with in such different ways. I hope that the Minister will say a few words also in order to quieten our fears about the safety aspect. I am not a great expert on the subject of gas installations but I will give the Minister one example, and perhaps he will respond to it.
1510
Suppose one has the situation where there were one or two owner-occupiers among a long line of terraced houses owned by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The houses would currently be piped for gas and the Northern Ireland Housing Association would make arrangements to convert them to, say, oil or electricity. However, the one or two owner-occupiers living in that line of houses might opt for solid fuel. Does the Minister not accept that there would be considerable danger where there is a different use of fuels in the same row of houses? As my noble friend said, specific qualifications on how the safety strictures will be imposed do not appear to be included in the order.
2.30 p.m.
Finally, perhaps I may say one word about the people who will be affected most by the loss of the gas service: that is, the elderly. It goes without saying that it is mainly the old houses which have gas installations, and very often there are old people living in them. I understand that, taking the Province as a whole, as many as 48 per cent. of the gas consumers are over the age of 50 and that in Greater Belfast alone, in the households headed by people over 60, 55 per cent. are gas users. I too have been asked by Age Concern to present some of its worries about the elderly in Northern Ireland and I ask the Minister to comment on the following point made by Age Concern.
First, Age Concern is worried that elderly consumers will not be fully aware of all the implications—financial, mechanical and technical—involved in these conversions. It is felt that the only way of helping them in this regard is through advisers from the Department of Economic Development visiting them personally in their homes and explaining the implications to them.
Next, Age Concern urges that the choice of alternative fuel supply should be based on consideration of the long-term needs and wishes of elderly people and not on the basis of the least-cost option. Failing this, it urges that the right of appeal against the least-cost option be built into the compensation scheme for this very vulnerable group of elderly people. Age Concern also urges that provision be made for internal gas supply pipes, meters and other fittings to be removed and that the compensation scheme to provide for the cost of the necessary redecoration should be adequate, as old people are unlikely to be able to carry out their own redecoration and would not be able to pay for it themselves.
Age Concern also urges that elderly people with arrears exeeding six months should be regarded as special cases unless this can be demonstrated to be inappropriate. Finally, Age Concern considers that elderly people entitled to grant under the compensation scheme should receive priority when grant payments are made. It is vital that elderly people are not penalised, or put at risk, by delay in payment of a grant.
In conclusion, there is a very great worry that it will be the old people who will find it hardest to adapt and, therefore, every kind of consideration should be made. I am happy to say that the Minister of State in another place gave that assurance and I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that.
I have nothing else to say except to add my plea to that of previous speakers that the Government should consider putting off for a few months the implementation of this order. It is an absolutely radical change in the lives of those who live in a part of the United Kingdom. I should be most grateful if the Minister would answer some of those questions.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the plea that has been made from this side of the House asking for delay in the implementation of this order. If the order is acted upon now we shall be at a point of no return. I have read, as no doubt have the other noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have spoken in this debate, the proceedings in Committee in another place. Certainly the case for this action was not compellingly made by the Minister in that Committee. I shall not attempt for one moment to go into details, as my noble friend on the Front Bench did in a very technical review of what has happened. Certainly in this House today the Minister has not had any more of a convincing argument to put than was put in another place.
Anybody listening to the debate will realise that quite clearly the force of the argument is on the side of noble Lords on this side of the House, including my noble friend Lord Moyne, who have asked for some delay in implementing this order. Technically, I cannot answer this question, nor do I think can anybody else in this Chamber, but if, for instance, natural gas was found within reach of an economically viable area of Northern Ireland, I was wondering what would be the situation if this order had been fully implemented. We may be placing the people in that area of the United Kingdom in a situation in which they would then not be able to take advantage of a natural asset that had been found. I can think of nothing more disturbing and economically disastrous than for that to happen.
I have always had a concern for the events in Northern Ireland. It dates back to my days in another place when I was a Government Whip and then an Opposition Whip with, so to speak, a brief to liaise on the effects of policies on Northern Ireland and what was happening in the Province. Of course, we have always tried to approach the difficult problems of that place in an almost bipartisan manner. However, I am rather surprised that during his statement today the Minister did not take an opportunity to deal with something that was said in Committee in another place by a Member representing a constituency in Northern Ireland which to me cuts right across what I know from experience to be the true way in which we are governing Northern Ireland.
It is not usual for Members of your Lordships' House to make reference to Members in another place. However, I think that when assertions are made in another place which I certainly do not think are creditable, people are entitled to give their views on them. I speak of the honourable Member for the Strangford constituency in Northern Ireland, where he said during that debate (I shall quote very briefly):
"But we have direct rule, and the Ministers who come to Northern Ireland for review days every month and go away again"—
Viscount Long: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way for a moment? I have been
1512
advised that in this House one is not allowed to quote from speeches in another place. I apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I will paraphrase it by saying that the comment was made by that Member that there was a lack of attendance in Northern Ireland by Ministers over a recent period. That is not my phrase: that is the phrase that was used during the Committee stage. I know from my experiences, both under a Labour Government and under successive Conservative Governments since, that any Minister who has had to serve in Northern Ireland has had to do so very often at great personal risk both to himself and to his family. I know that irrespective of politics they have done that assiduously, and I think they have done it very well.
Of course, we must remind ourselves that Northern Ireland is in this situation because there seems to be an inability on the part of political leaders in Northern Ireland to come together to provide solutions that would be acceptable in normal political and governmental terms. However, I found the comment rather strange, coming from a Member who has the good fortune to serve not only in another place and in Europe as an MEP but also in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I question whether a person sitting on three such bodies would be able to compare their own attendance at those venues with that of some Ministers who serve the Government today and some Labour Ministers of the past. I believe that this merits some reference. That is why I make it. I believe that it was a rather callow remark that was made, and that it would have been better unsaid.
Having said that, I hope that the Minister will urge the Secretary of State to have regard to the points that have been made: I hope that he will give thought to them over some months to see whether the gas industry, or a basis of it, can be retained in Northern Ireland. To burn our boats now would be a rather tragic blunder from which we could not return.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, since the abolition of Stormont and the introduction of direct rule in Northern Ireland in 1972, there has not been a single issue on which the political parties in Northern Ireland could be united or could find any agreement—except this one. Every political party in Northern Ireland, every representational group, everyone who is concerned about the energy needs and the energy prospects for the future in Northern Ireland, speaks with a voice of total unanimity when they claim that the Government have taken a disastrous decision to close down, once and for all, the gas industry in Northern Ireland.
This is a decision of major importance. It affects the whole way of life of 100,000 consumers in Northern Ireland who hitherto have had the opportunity to use gas. It affects also the whole economic future of 1,000 employees in the gas industry in Northern Ireland. Many of the men who will be made redundant will never work again. Men who are 50 years of age and even those who are not yet 50, will never again have gainful employment in Northern Ireland. And people of all ages, particularly old people, who have become accustomed to using gas will have that opportunity withdrawn from them.

1513
Sitting here a few moments ago, I heard the Whip on the Front Bench telling my colleague that it was not procedurally right to quote from Hansard of another place. It offends the procedures of this House. And we must live by the procedures of this House. We must not do anything which may offend the susceptibilities of another place. I must tell all noble Lords present that this is not how I see this House. I believe that if the 100,000 consumers in Northern Ireland who will be affected, and the 1,000 men who will lose their livelihoods, were to be sitting in the Gallery of this House or were within the confines of the House at the moment and saw the atmosphere in which their future is being decided, they would be bitterly resentful.
I am delighted to see that we have enlisted another recruit. The noble Lord, Lord Moyne, has spoken this afternoon. A noble Baroness sat on the Government side on the last occasion that we debated Northern Ireland. I am delighted to see that, one by one, and step by step, there are people who are beginning to listen to Northern Ireland. However, it would be less than honest to say that there is a great deal of enthusiasm shown in this House or indeed in another place when the affairs of Northern Ireland are discussed.
2.45 p.m.
We hear repeatedly—the papers including the Financial Times one day last week, are full of it and it has caused great comment among all political pundits—that the Government are trying to find some agreement with the Government of the Republic to see whether together they can grapple with the problems of Northern Ireland and find agreement on some cross-border co-operation which would help in bringing the warring communities together in Northern Ireland. Here was an absolutely obvious way in which they could have put their money where their mouth is. They did not have to have secret discussions, and they did not have to have leaks one way or the other. We hear these days a lot about the atmosphere of secrecy. I read an article in the Financial Times last week, and I read in the Guardian this morning an article saying that we should not believe what was written in the Financial Times.
The Government could have taken the decision which has already been referred to by the noble Lord opposite; they could have agreed with the Government of the Irish Republic to the installation of the pipeline. Such a decision would have economically helped the Government of the Republic and it would also have helped the people of Northern Ireland. It would not have been a unique decision, a one-off decision or something which had never happened previously. We only have to look to Europe to find that that is so. Take, for example, Western Germany, which is allegedly living on its nerves every day in case there may be a nuclear holocaust thrown at it from the Soviet Union. In spite of that, it is building a pipeline to the Soviet Union in order to use supplies of Soviet Union gas in Western Germany. That proves that it would not be a one-off decision. The situation, the atmosphere, the fears and suspicions which exist between Western Germany and the Soviet Union are far more acute than those which exist in Northern Ireland.
I speak as someone who was formerly chairman of the Belfast Corporation Gas Committee. We first
1514
began to suspect that decisions may be taken by the British Government to wind down the industry—and I have to say this because it would be less than honest to say otherwise—in 1977. There was a Labour Government in power; but within two years the Labour Government were out of office. However, I think I am correct in saying that had that Labour Government continued in office, they certainly would not be taking the decision which is being taken today by this Government.
Whatever disagreements I may have had—and I had many—with the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Roy Mason, I know that he was so concerned with trying to create economic prosperity in Northern Ireland, outside of other political decisions, that I have no doubt in my mind that he would not have imposed the decision which has been taken by the Government.
Therefore, we find ourselves in a situation where there is great disagreement and great argument about how much it will cost. The Government say that it will cost £97 million. Those who are closely identified and associated with the industry say that it will cost £143 million, and I am prepared to accept their figures.
The Government on occasions have employed economic analysts. Indeed, they have employed a very reputable firm of economic analysts—Coopers and Lybrand. When the Government want to prove a case they employ that firm, and then, whenever it suits the Government, they will point out that firm's economic expertise—in other words, whenever its decision comes down in favour of what the Government are intending to do. However, when Coopers and Lybrand, after a very close assessment of every aspect of the gas industry, say, "We do not believe that it is right that this industry should be brought to an end", the Government, in the words of their Minister of State, say, "That is Alice in Wonderland talk" The Government cannot have it both ways. The Government should accept the expertise of Coopers and Lybrand whatever its decision may be, whether it be for or against whatever the Government's attitude happens to be at that time.
This is one decision which unites every aspect of political opinion in Northern Ireland. The Government took the decision one day last week when there were very few representatives in the House of Commons. Today there are very few Members of your Lordships' House here this afternoon. This is something with which we have had to live since direct rule. I think I said the last time we debated Northern Ireland in this House that we do not see a great influx of Members running through one or other of the doors into this Chamber to listen and to take account of the problems which daily affect Northern Ireland. The same thing happened in another place.
That attitude is a direct condemnation of direct rule. That is not the best way to govern the troublesome Province of Northern Ireland. But here is an issue where politics are set aside. There is no question of the border, or of flags. There is a question of the border in relation to the pipeline, but it is not a question of one's allegiance to the British connection or an aspiration to the Irish Republic. It is an issue of bread and butter which will affect people of whatever political persuasion or religious denomination in Northern

1515
Ireland. The Government have taken a disastrous decision.
Many of my noble friends who spoke before me pointed out that they had had communications from Age Concern in particular. I have read the document. They express a great deal of the fears which are at present felt by those people whose gas supplies will be affected. My noble friend Lord Blease is the only person who will be affected by the decision who is in this House at the moment. My mother will be affected by it because she lives in Northern Ireland. I shall not be affected by it because I live in Britain.
I could easily have absented myself today because I do not live in Northern Ireland. I left Northern Ireland in rather controversial circumstances. I consider myself to have been harshly treated by a certain section of the Northern Ireland electorate, and it would perhaps be understandable for me to absent myself from this debate, or even to agree with the Government. But I could not do that because I know how many people will be affected.
I have heard my noble friend—and, so far as I am concerned, I have no noble enemies in this House—Lord Hampton say that we cannot oppose this order. I have heard my noble friend on the Front Bench say that we cannot. I am not particularly concerned with the niceties and procedures of this House. This House is part of the British parliamentary system. That was why I accepted the honour of coming into this House. I did not think I was finished with politics, or was being sent out to grass, or that you do not say or do anything controversial in this House.
Since I became a Member of this House two years ago there have been other issues in regard to legislation of which I totally disapproved; for example, the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Emergency Provisions Act. They were two issues to which I was totally opposed, and yet I did not think it necessary to divide the House. I say here and now, in the closing words of my remarks, that if there is an opportunity to divide this House today I hope that those noble Lords who have spoken against this order, and others who may be in this building, will realise the enormity of the decision which has been taken and will vote against the Government.
What would be the consequence of that? I am not naive enough to believe that there would be enough noble Lords in this House to defeat the Government. I do not think that is possible, but it is one way in which we could register our total disapproval. Those Members on this side of the House who because of their adherence to procedure feel that they cannot go into the Lobby do not have to go into the Lobby at all. They do not have to vote with me in the Lobby, but at least they could abstain from going into the Government Lobby in order to show their disapproval of the actions which have been taken.
I believe that this Government, had they been anxious to do so, could have had further consultations and agreements with the Government of the Irish Republic, with EC sources and with other people who might be anxious to retain the industry. I believe that, as has already been stated by my noble friends, persons associated with Lloyds Bank have said that they would
1516
be willing to have a further assessment made of the viability of the gas industry in Northern Ireland.
I remember many years ago when it was suggested that there should be an electricity link between the Republic and Northern Ireland. Some of the more bigoted Unionists objected forcefully to such an electricity link being established, on the grounds that they did not want republican hands on the levers of energy in Northern Ireland. Those days have gone. Unionist spokesmen have been prepared to accept flak from some of the more extreme factions of unionism in identifying with the Republic of Ireland in an attempt to have this gas line created.
I do not want to believe that the Government have taken an irrevocable decision. If they have, there is no way that I can sit in this House today and say that I agree with that decision. I shall do whatever I can, between now and the closing speeches, to mobilise whatever support I can to show my disapproval of the Government's attitude in the Lobbies of this House this afternoon.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I rise to say that if the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, chooses to divide the House I shall be happy to be his Teller.
Lord Blease: My Lords, we have had a wide ranging debate and a good debate. I do not wish to detain the House by repeating what has already been said about this gas order except in one respect. As has already been mentioned by the Minister, and other noble Lords, over the past 10 years the future of the Northern Ireland gas industry has given rise to much argument, debate and much documentation. Today because of the present Government's policies—I should perhaps say lack of efficient policies—we are not debating the future of the Northern Ireland gas industry. Sadly and tragically we are discussing the closure, the demise, the death of the gas industry in Northern Ireland. This Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 is not about the possible role of the gas industry in the economy of Northern Ireland, but about its funeral arrangements. The contents of the order are not precise or satisfactory arrangements for the industry or its consumers.
One thing is evident: the considerable distress that the order has given rise to in Northern Ireland as regards the future of the 1,000 skilled workers and members of management and as regards the future for 90,000 householders who represent 300,000 people in the Province who are users of gas supplies. There is also concern among the 3,000 commercial and 120 industrial firms who depend on gas as a primary source of heat and energy in the production of goods and services. They have considerable concern and anxiety about methods of replacement and how they can continue their production because of the possible changes.
Apart from these difficult questions that arise from this order, there is a further impediment to discussions and any meaningful, informed or reasoned debate. It has already been mentioned and I and others have spoken about it repeatedly in the House. The impediment is the procedural arrangements and the

1517
undemocratic way that some inappropriate parliamentary conventions are applied in this House to Northern Ireland orders. Instead of upholding the strong and valuable traditions of this House as a revising Chamber, we are here called upon today to be a mere rubber stamp.
3 p.m.
If we could amend this order or even suggest changes that hopefully could give rise to some genuine positive consideration by the Minister and the Government, it would at least give some semblance of reality to the totally bemusing and ridiculous situation. Unless the noble Lord the Minister can today in his reply to this debate give us some satisfactory answers to the serious questions raised and unless the noble Lord the Minister can give some assurances on the points made in the debate that they will be earnestly and seriously considered by the Government, we—and let us be honest and let us face up to it—are taking part in an exercise of futility: futility so far as this order concerns the future and the present users and employees of the gas industry in Northern Ireland.
If there is anything useful that I can do at this stage in the debate it is perhaps with my few remaining remarks, to allow the noble Lord the opportunity to get his replies in order, which I am sure he will do. I am sure that the noble Lord will attempt to meet some of the requests that have already been made. He always responds favourably in respect of modest requests and we look forward to his replies on this occasion.
However, I would wish to add that while I do not accept the arguments made by the Minister in his opening remarks calling for the approval for the order, I find the tone and tenor of his approach more politically sensitive and perhaps more understanding than those of his honourable friend the Minister, Dr. Rhodes Boyson, when he has spoken in another place in debates on this order. I believe that no one should object to plain and forthright speech in the presentation of political objectives, and Dr. Rhodes Boyson has certain qualities in that regard. But, along with many others, I take strong exception to the arrogant manner in which Dr. Boyson has dealt with the many approaches to him about the gas industry and about this order. I would particularly draw attention to Dr. Boyson's statement during the debate on the order in another place on 19th July. The report is in Hansard, in Volume 83, No. 159, column 691. Dr. Boyson stated:
"None of those who voted against the proposal before the Northern Ireland Committee and none of those who voted it down in the Northern Ireland Assembly carry any responsibility for Government policy. Obviously it was possible for them to vote against our proposal because they were not responsible for the budget. Their action was one of those freaks of freedom which occur from time to time and which people enjoy".
I consider it despicable to imply to honourable Members of another place who voted against this order and to Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly that they are irresponsible and that perhaps they take some form of inverted joy or thoughtless pleasure in voting against what I consider to be government by diktat, conflicting arguments, unqualified pronouncements and unanswered questions on important issues such as that represented in this order. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with
1518
me when I say that in no way are our approaches in this House today motivated by any sense or degree of joy in what we are considering. Nor do we consider that those who voted against the order were in any way acting irresponsibly.
I conclude by appealing to the Minister that, in the interests of the general democratic process, in the interests of the concern that has been expressed in Northern Ireland and in the interests of some realistic approach to Northern Ireland orders and the manner they are dealt with and debated, he will give attention to what has already been said by my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Prys-Davies. Perhaps my noble friend may be made a Minister at some future time. I understand that my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies has sent a letter to the Minister. He also put forward a plea that the date of operation of the order should be delayed. That is my own plea and it has also been put forward by others who have taken part in this debate.
I should like to place on the record that I welcome and support the views that were expressed by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. I know that I speak with the goodwill of the Northern Ireland Gas and Electricity Joint Working Group, whose secretary, Mr. Pimley, has been busy in the Westminster Lobbies concerning this order. I am grateful for the support and the earnest help that has been given by other noble Lords and by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, who has left the Chamber. Their assistance has been warmly appreciated by the gas industry in Northern Ireland and the help given by the noble Baroness has been considerable in this regard.
In my view, the cogent arguments and reasoned points that have been put forward today should be considered and should have some influence on the Minister's reply to this important debate today.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think the noble Lord. Lord Fitt, and others of your Lordships make possibly the valid point that there are rather few noble Lords who make a habit of attending these sometimes technical and sometimes esoteric debates that we have on various orders concerning Northern Ireland. I would stress to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and to your Lordships that there is more than a grain of truth in the fact that we do have very high-quality speeches and a great degree of knowledge expressed here in our deliberations, as has been shown once again during our debate on the order this afternoon.
The Government know of the concern that is felt in the Province on this matter of gas and gas supplies. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, to take it on board that his contributions, together with those of other noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and others—are very valuable. Incidentally, may I welcome the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who, we hope, given a short holiday, will be in full voice and full strength soon, in the autumn. We look forward to that, and indeed all your Lordships who speak and debate on Northern Ireland affairs are looking forward to that. We are very grateful that he has been able to come today. We admire his fortitude in having attended right through this debate: and he will know that we are due to discuss another subject which is of interest to many of your Lordships—

1519
betting, gaming and the like—immediately after this order. I think that subject is very dear to the hearts of many people in Northern Ireland—probably almost as many as are concerned with gas. However, at the moment we are concerned with gas.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, began traditionally by commenting on the procedures and, indeed, the inadequacies of direct rule. I have written down here the words "direct rule syndrome". He may have his opinion, but I would say to him what I have said to your Lordships collectively, which is that I believe we have had a very useful debate. I stress to the noble Lord, and indeed to all your Lordships—I shall be filling this out later on—that there is no question of killing the industry. This draft order gives permission to any or all of the 13 gas undertakings to close if they wish. It is in no way compelling.
The first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, concerned the Kinsale project. On 6th September last year, as I and many of your Lordships will be aware, the United Kingdom Government announced that the Kinsale project would not proceed, and that subsidy for the gas industry in Northern Ireland would cease. It was that decision to which my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place referred in his evidence to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I give the undertaking that the Government were sincere in their offer to consider any proposal which was seen to offer a viable way forward. I stress that this expression "viable way forward". I have to say that this viable way forward simply did not make itself known to us, and indeed was not apparent.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and I think my noble friend Lord Moyne also, referred to the Northern Ireland Assembly. As your Lordships and those who have read the report of the Northern Ireland Assembly will be aware, that Assembly accepted that the Government's decision to withdraw subsidy was irrevocable; and the inevitable outcome of that decision will be the closure of the industry. But, of course, the Assembly was of the opinion that the Government should make every effort to ensure that the rundown of the industry will be conducted as swiftly as possible, so that consumers are not left in a state of uncertainty. The Assembly also made specific proposals with regard to the rundown of undertakings and the conversion of their consumers' needs to other fuels. These are being considered, and a reply to the Assembly will be issued shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also raised the question of gas from Morecambe Bay. I am advised that the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland has examined various options for the supply of all types of gas to the Province, and for that purpose I am including the supply of gas from Morecambe Bay. I am able to tell the noble Lord that there is no indication that natural gas could be provided on a viable basis from Morecambe Bay. When I say "viable basis", it would be on a lower cost than our calculations up to the present moment.
The noble Lord was also kind enough to give me advance notice of his suggestion as to a possible stay of execution of the draft order pending various projects
1520
or inquiries which are being carried out now by Lloyds merchant bank, to enable them to complete their evaluation of a pipeline project to import Kinsale gas to the Province. This question was raised also by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will accept that the Government maintained subsidy to the industry for a period of six months at a cost of £1 million per month while the Joint Working Group developed its rescue plan. But we believe that it is unfair to the industry, and indeed to the consumers, for the Government to prolong this uncertainty by continuing their subsidy on the basis of what can only be speculation about yet another possible scheme.
This gas order is purely an enabling measure—I stress that to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, who rose to speak—which is intended to facilitate the closure of those gas undertakings which no longer wish to remain in operation. Those gas undertakings may choose to remain in business while investigations into private sector proposals continue. But from my point of view, and from the point of view of the Government, the Government cannot finance any further delay.
3.15 p.m.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and others of your Lordships asked about possible assistance for a scheme for conversions. The Government have undertaken to consider the possibility of the need for some form of appeals mechanism in respect of this scheme. But it is still under careful consideration—I hope that that is an improvement on what may have been said in another place—and we must and will consider equity and fairness to consumers in relation to what is feasible in our own administration. Above all, it must be subject to accountability for public funds. The noble Lord may have heard that we may be proposing various schemes for conversions for consumers who are left without gas, but the final details have yet to be worked out. However, I hope that we have been able to give an outline.
The noble Lord quite rightly referred to the question of safety. The noble Lord may be aware—certainly I was not aware until, during the course of the debate, a note reached me—that what is called town gas can be made up of many different types of gas. I am sure he will accept, as I certainly do, that safety requirements might be different for these various types of gas, and if we insert the word "safety" and try to define it too tightly in the order we could find ourselves in trouble.
However, I give the noble Lord and your Lordships an undertaking that we shall be following precisely the advice of the British Gas Corporation on all safety procedures and on technical matters, as regards the operations which may be carried out. So far as the order is concerned, we shall be following all this advice from the British Gas Corporation. I am sure your Lordships will accept that it is pre-eminent in this field and that we could not have better advice on aspects of safety. I am able to say that our estimates reflect this major priority.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and, I am sure, your Lordships will accept that the Government have responsibility to make a decision on the gas industry.

1521
I am afraid that we cannnot farm out this responsibility. The Department of Economic Development has taken advice all through from expert sources before arriving at the decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also referred to the possibility of private enterprise rescue, and the speech which was made by my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place. I think my honourable friend went out of his way to applaud any role of private capital in the gas industry in the Province, and indeed in any industry in general. The Government would certainly not stand in the way of any private investment in any plan to revise this undertaking, or to set up a new gas industry, so long as there was no recourse to Government guarantees and protection. I am afraid that what the Government could not do is invest taxpayers' money when they do not believe this to be prudent. All your Lordships will know that I have had to stand in this very position and debate the results of Government expenditure on what were rather unsound commercial ventures.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and others of your Lordships raised the question of consumers converting to other fuels. Domestic gas consumers will be entitled under the gas conversion assistance scheme to a grant which will be sufficient to cover the least-cost conversion or the replacement of their gas appliances. This may involve conversion to liquid petroleum gas or electricity, in the case of cookers, with the possibility of solid fuel or oil as further options in the case of heating, central heating, bath water heating, hot water heating and the like. Industrial and commercial consumers will be offered, as I stressed in my opening remarks, the 30 per cent. grant on the same basis; and they may also be eligible for energy conservation grants. I hope that that will be of some help to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, was concerned—and I think that this was the general tenor of the debate—about the question of job losses arising from any decisions to close by the undertakings in Northern Ireland. Nobody has a monopoly of concern on this issue, but the wish to preserve jobs is not a feasible basis for the success of any industry. Indeed, in recent years the desire to maintain employment in the gas undertakings in the Province has persuaded the Government to provide ever-increasing subsidies only to see the industry's decline continue relentlessly. I referred to that aspect when I opened my remarks on the draft order. The jobs factor is not a simple issue. The growth or the decline of jobs in any one industry, especially in the fuel industry which we are discussing this afternoon, has a direct bearing on employment patterns among its competitiors—oil, electricity, solid fuels or the like. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and other noble Lords, were also concerned with continuing the subsidy. The Government's fundamental difference with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is that the Government have set their face against continuing subsidy in the absence of any prospect of viability. If I may continue with this concept of viability, we have taken advice and we have I hope consulted on the fullest possible basis. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton,
1522
asked one question which I think is of relevance and has been uppermost in virtually everybody's mind this afternoon. I stress to him that arrangements for the payment under the gas conversion assistance scheme will be comprehensive and flexible. We are going to discuss arrangements for this conversion scheme with Age Concern and with other bodies which have in mind consumers and particular groups such as the elderly and those who are dependent on gas. I was interested in the figures of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I give that undertaking and I hope that it will be of some assistance to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton.
My noble friend Lord Moyne was kind enought to give me some advance warning about his thoughts this afternoon. My noble friend startled me with the thought of the gas pipeline in the Republic proceeding through his farm. When the noble Lord and I rise in our places to discuss pipelines going through our farms it tends to cause mirth. Certainly, in another place one of my honourable friends said that compensation for the pipeline proceeding through one's farm outdid much of the crop proceeds. I hope that that is not the case with my noble friend Lord Moyne.
My noble friend referred to disappointment n the Republic of Ireland. In his announcement of 6th September last year, my right honourable friend Mr. Butler expressed his bitter disappointment. I know from personal experience that he was especially upset that, despite the intense effort which had been put by all sides into the negotiations and into the discussions by both Governments, the project to supply natural gas to Northern Ireland from Kinsale simply could not proceed as it was not viable for Northern Ireland. The Government have reiterated their sorrow that the project, which at one time appeared to offer the prospect of a mutually advantageous cross-border enterprise, should have foundered. We regret that. But we are firmly convinced that the scope for developing improved cross-border economic relations—this is only one aspect of it—would not have been served by proceeding with a project which clearly was not to the commercial benefit of Northern Ireland.
My noble friend failed to grasp one of the prime reasons for the decision of the United Kingdom Government not to support a natural gas project. One of the prime reasons for that decision was that the pricing arrangements over the period of supply would result in a gas price that was insufficiently competitive with other fuels. Also, the market available to gas is not adequate to provide for a viable project. I referred in my opening remarks to the drop in demand for gas over a period of some four years. I stress to my noble friend that those problems have not been resolved. I assure him that the public are not being misled. I wish to make it clear that the Government simply have no plans to make a re-examination of that particular project.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, made mention of a possible delay. I hope that I covered that point in my earlier response to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean. I hope that he is not too upset about the procedural gap that might have been created—certainly I have done it. I am sure we can resolve the matter. However, we are all particularly grateful for the noble Lord's words of praise for those of your Lordships who serve in

1523
Northern Ireland. Any possible risk or danger is totally outweighed by the welcome which all of us receive in Northern Ireland, even in matters such as we are discussing this afternoon. The sympathy and understanding that I find there is unbelievable. I wish to pay my own tribute to everyone in Northern Ireland who helps this Government and others to do their particular jobs.
I would stress to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and to all of your Lordships, that the draft order before the House today is an enabling and permissive measure. It does not compel any closure. I stress also that to vote against the draft order this afternoon would be to vote against any undertaking being permitted to close, even though that undertaking deemed it imperative to do so.
A vote against the order this afternoon would also indicate opposition to the provision of support. There may have been discussions as to the level of support, but your Lordships will surely agree that support of the order of £97 million is not ungenerous. From my own side of life in Northern Ireland, I can put every £1 million to extremely good use. I believe that the support we are providing for the planned and orderly rundown really is particularly generous. Your Lordships may think that I have said enough. I am sorry that I have not been able to be more helpful. I have tried to explain the Government's reason why we believe this order will be to the benefit of Northern Ireland. We hope to be flexible and generous. With that, I commend the order.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): My Lords, the Question is, That the draft order laid before the House on llth July be approved? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the "Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
The Tellers for the "Not-Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 50, and the Division therefore cannot take place. I declare that the "Contents" have it.
Motion agreed to.

Business
3.32 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a short business statement. It has been agreed through the usual channels that the Unstarred Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, shall not now be taken this afternoon. It will instead be taken next Tuesday, 30th July.

Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order, a draft of which was laid before this House on 26th June 1985, be approved. Your Lordships may have thought we were debating
1524
this subject on the last order, but I hope not. It is a much more bulky order than the last one but I hope it will not give rise to a lengthy debate. It may give rise to a detailed debate, especially from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and I look forward to a profitable contribution from him.
The purpose of the order is to bring up to date the social law in Northern Ireland on all forms of betting, gaming, lotteries and amusements with prizes. As noble Lords who come from Northern Ireland will know, these laws are outdated and are proving increasingly difficult to enforce. They have fallen into disrepute in many respects. The order seeks to remedy this highly unsatisfactory situation by replacing all existing enactments with legislation which will reflect current attitudes to gambling and demands for gambling facilities, and which can be expected, therefore, to command general public respect and be capable of proper enforcement.
The order before us is lengthy and complex legislation. I shall not weary your Lordships with all its detail but will concentrate on the main provisions. If any noble Lords want explanation or information I shall do my best to provide it accurately and swiftly.
Part I, which deals with the title, commencement and interpretation is self-explanatory. Part II largely re-enacts the existing law on betting but makes several changes aimed at making the whole procedure more efficient in its operation. The major change of substance is to allow greyhound tracks to operate a tote. Through a quirk in the existing law only horserace courses may be licensed to operate the totalisator in Northern Ireland, even though the law in the rest of the United Kingdom permits the tote at greyhound tracks. The Government see no reason why greyhound racing in Northern Ireland should not have the same facility, thus giving the punters at the greyhound tracks the choice between betting with bookmakers or on the tote. There are new rules for the conduct of bookmaking offices. Restricted sound broadcasts of race commentaries—in other words what I am advised is the "Extel" service—will be allowed. Also, in line with recent changes in the corresponding law in Great Britain, it will be possible to relax by subordinate legislation the restrictions on the facilities which may be provided in bookmaking offices, including television broadcasts. The Government have no immediate plans to exercise this power in Northern Ireland.
Part III of the order deals with gaming. It has five chapters. The first applies to gaming of a private kind—for example, within a family or between friends. Its aim is to force all gaming with potential for abuse into the control system which is to be established by Chapters II and III, as well as prohibiting all gaming in public places. Bankers' games and games which by their nature are not of equal chance are prohibited except on domestic occasions, as in one's own home or in places such as hostels.
We now turn to the question of bingo, and I am advised that Chapter II provides a comprehensive code for the control of bingo which is promoted commercially in private bingo clubs licensed by the courts for that purpose. The Government considered carefully whether to provide as in Great Britain for the

1525
licensing of gaming clubs, such as casinos, in which other forms of commercial gaming may take place, but we concluded that, apart from bingo, there was no evidence of any significant demand in Northern Ireland for this kind of gaming club.
Chapter III of this part deals with gaming by means of gaming machines. Anyone who wishes to supply or maintain a gaming machine will have to obtain from a court a certificate or permit authorising him to do so. The purpose of this and the other provisions of this chapter, is to prevent racketeering and the spread of machines in places where there is no real public demand for them.
I understand that there are also machines which go traditionally by the names of "jackpot" machines. I am told that these are gaming machines which may pay big prizes. These are prohibited except in registered private members' clubs or when used for fund-raising at bazaars, sales of work, fetes or similar entertainments promoted for non-commercial purposes. To have gaming machines, a club must register with a court, either under the order or under the Registration of Clubs Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. As in Great Britain, a registered club will be limited to a maximum of two gaming machines. Quite a few clubs in Northern Ireland already have more than that number—because the existing law has been interpreted by the courts as permitting the use of machines as a means of running private lotteries. I shall spare your Lordships the details. I have not the legal case, but, if anybody wanted it, I am sure I could find the decision of the court. However, Government see no good reason why clubs in Northern Ireland should have a greater entitlement to machines than clubs in the rest of the United Kingdom, where the limit of two applies.
Apart from any objections on social grouds to a greater number of machines, the Government are concerned on the basis of advice from the Royal Ulster Constabulary that in certain clubs in certain areas of Northern Ireland the proceeds from the machines are financing the operations of paramilitary organisations. Indeed, there is a strong case for a complete ban on the use of machines in clubs. However, the Government recognise that such a ban would be unreasonable, as clubs have had such machines for many years and as it would unfairly penalise the vast majority of highly respectable clubs which have absolutely no links with the paramilitaries. Taking all this into account, the Government have concluded that the limit of two—that is, two gaming machines in each establishment —is reasonable.
I see that my next heading is "Amusement With Prizes Machines". I assume that that may be clear to your Lordships. Certainly I am never quite sure whether when I go to a prize machine it is amusing when I seem to lose most of my stake. However, I am advised that amusement with prizes machines which pay prizes not £exceeding in value, are restricted to travelling showmen's fairs, licensed bingo clubs and premises of a type prescribed in regulations which are made by the department and either licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor or granted an amusement permit by a district council.
1526
These provisions are much more restrictive than those in the law in Great Britain, where virtually any type of premises qualifies. In Northern Ireland, primarily to prevent exploitation of the machines by paramilitary organisations, but also on social and other grounds, the Government consider it essential to have the power to limit the range of premises entitled to install machines. In the short term, the Government intend that only amusement arcades and similar premises used mainly for the provision of amusements shall be allowed to install machines—subject, of course, to the grant of an amusement permit by a district council.
There is no prospect in the immediate future of the Government allowing machines in other types of premises, in particular, in public houses. I appreciate why, in this respect, the licensed trade in Northern Ireland should feel that it is being treated unfairly compared with the clubs, which will continue to be allowed to have their two jackpot machines. I hope, however, that your Lordships will accept and possibly that you will understand why the security advice must be a major consideration in deciding if and when any particular types of premises, which are, after all, open to the general public, should be prescribed. The Government—I give this undertaking—will keep the position under close review.
Turning to Chapter IV, we find that this provides for small gaming, which consists of games played at entertainments promoted otherwise than for private gain. This type of activity will cover such charitable and non-profit making activities as bridge and whist drives. But it will also allow other games such as bingo to be promoted by, for example, clubs for the benefit of the membership in general.
Chapter V is the last chapter of Part III of the order dealing with gaming. It allows clubs to make modest charges for taking part in equal chance, non-banker gaming, without contravening the general prohibition on participation charges in Chapter I. Clubs will be able to make small charges sufficient only to cover the cost of providing the facilities for the gaming. The department may by order vary the limit on the daily charge specifying different limits for different games. The chapter also prohibits, subject to the specified exceptions, the advertising of facilities for gaming and allows a landlord to evict a tenant or occupier of premises convicted of using the premises for illegal gaming.
Before leaving this chapter, I should like to mention the various regulatory and enforcement functions which, in Great Britain, fall to the Gaming Board. These will be discharged in Northern Ireland by other agencies—namely, the courts, the district councils, the police and, for some purposes, I am advised, the department.
Part IV of the order deals with lotteries. It makes all lotteries unlawful other than small lotteries at exempt entertainments, private lotteries and public lotteries promoted by a registered society for the support of charities, sports, or games or cultural activities or for other non-commercial purposes. The provisions for small and private lotteries largely re-enact the existing law. The major change is that societies registered with a district council for the purpose will be able to

1527
promote public lotteries. For the most part, these provisions mirror similar provisions for societies' lotteries in Great Britain. I should like to mention one particular protection. It is that anyone who wishes to act as an external lottery consultant or manager will have to hold a lottery certificate issued by the court. In Great Britain we have local lotteries which a local authority may promote for specified objects. I have not referred to these. But the Government's published proposals have provided for these primarily to test reaction, particularly of the district councils in Northern Ireland. The responses from the councils indicated that very few, if any, would want to run local lotteries. Furthermore, the Northern Ireland Assembly and several councils strongly opposed the provision on both moral and social grounds and because there had been no demand for it by councils. In the circumstances, the Government decided against local lotteries.
Part V deals with amusements with prizes and prize competitions. It allows amusements with prizes other than by gaming machines at non-commercial entertainments and, subject to specified restrictions, on a commercial basis at travelling showmen's fairs, in licensed bingo clubs and in premises that are used wholly or mainly for the provision of amusements, again under a permit by the district council. This part, Part V, re-enacts the existing law in Northern Ireland relating to newspaper and other competitions. It prohibits the conduct through any newspaper or in connection with any trade or business of any prize competition which involves forecasting the result of an event or any other competition in which success does not depend to a substantial degree on the exercise of skill.
3.45 p.m.
Part VI covers a variety of matters. Cheating will continue to be an offence and gambling debts will remain irrecoverable in law. However, the police will have rights of entry without a search warrant to all premises with facilities for engaging in betting, gaming, lotteries and amusements with prizes and, with a warrant, to any premises.
I am advised that that is a brief outline of the main provisions of the order. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me, because there are 187 articles to the order, 21 schedules and an index which comprises nine pages. I shall not draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to Article 155 onwards. I, too, found difficulty in defining a "pleasure permit"—perhaps it is not listening to Ministers taking 10 minutes to make brief remarks!
I hope that I have given a brief outline of the main provisions of this fairly thick and fairly detailed order. I have tried to give an adequate picture of the principal aims of the order. I assure your Lordships that the provisions of the order have been very carefully thought out. I emphasise that, while they have been based broadly on comparable provisions in the law in Great Britain, the Government have taken the maximum possible care to ensure that the provisions are tailored to meet the particular needs and circumstances which apply in Northern Ireland. I believe that the new laws will provide both a clear and
1528
a firm framework which will enable gambling to take place in Northern Ireland under proper controls. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th June be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, this lengthy order of 187 articles has been described by Ministers in another place as one of the most significant pieces of legislation in social policy to be produced for a number of years and which will influence social policy up to the end of the century and into the next. Some may say that if that be a true description of the order, it is a sad commentary on social policy in the Province. The underlying philosophy is clear enough; it is the philosophy of the Royal Commission on gambling which reported in 1978.
Consistent with that philosophy, the order seeks to achieve three objectives: first, to reflect present-day attitudes to gambling, a more easy-going attitude than in former days; secondly, to produce a law which will command public respect; and, thirdly, to produce a law which will be relatively straightforward to enforce. That sounds very reasonable to reasonable people. Yet the department cannot take everything for granted.
I am impelled to draw attention to the fact that there are grounds for concern about the preparation of the order. It is said that the consultation was undertaken in too much of a hurry and that it was undertaken too late in the day, and it was felt to be inadequate. The Assembly complained bitterly about the inadequate time allowed for discussions and it spoke of dismay and disappointment at the refusal of the department to extend the consultation period. It appears to me that it is not fashionable in the department to extend the consultation period or a stay of execution. I notice that the Methodist Church and the alcohol and other drugs education committee of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland also complained of the lack of opportunity to give consideration to the terms of the order.
Therefore, there emerged a feeling that the consultation was not a consultation—it was merely a form of softening-up process. That comes through very clearly in the written evidence of the Belfast and Ulster Licensed Vintners' Association. I shall quote one sentence from their evidence:
"It appears to us from the whole scheme of the Order that the decision is already made and our alleged opportunity to comment on the Order is only to give a cosmetic appearance in that the legislature and drafters of the Order will be able to say that, 'representations were received and all views considered'.".
They are strong words. If their criticism is valid, that could be damaging for democracy in the Province.
I notice that the Assembly favoured the setting up of a Gaming Board for Northern Ireland—mindful, no doubt, that the Gaming Board of Great Britain is highly regarded and has acquired a reputation for firmness and fairness. However, the proposal was not acceptable, the Government pointing out that the Gaming Board had been established originally to police the casino industry, which had swollen in the 1960s, and also to get rid of criminals who had invaded the territory. These were the historical reasons for setting up the Gaming Board, but it is not obvious

1529
to many that this can be used as a good reason for rejecting a different kind of central authority for the circumstances of Northern Ireland.
The Assembly wanted all forms of commercial bingo banned, but again this was not acceptable to the Government. Commercial bingo caters for a genuine social need by providing places where people can meet in a friendly atmosphere to enjoy an agreeable flutter, and one just wonders whether the Assembly paid adequate attention to its beneficial social role. In the absence of any evidence from the police, or from a body such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, that commercial bingo was leading to family neglect or to pressures on the family budget, I think the Goverment were right in rejecting the Assembly's proposal.
But the Assembly and many other organisations and individuals in the Province will be pleased that the Government have abandoned the proposal that local authorities should have the right to promote lotteries to raise money. Fortunately for the department, it did not have to come to a conclusion on whether or not this was a desirable proposal in its own right as there was, as the Minister explained, a lack of any positive demand by the local authorities for this fund-raising facility.
The Government have considered but refused the application by clubs to have more than two gaming machines, or the jackpot machines, and the Minister dealt with this refusal. I listened with great interest to the explanation which he advanced as to why the Government had not acceded to the request for more gaming machines. Whether or not the response of the police was hypocritical, as some people maintain, I know not, but it is nevertheless a revealing comment because it shows how difficult it can sometimes be to press the facts of Northern Ireland into the England and Wales mould, although I appreciate that even in England and Wales you can have only two jackpot machines in relation to a club.
With those few comments I should like to support the order, and I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lye11, for having outlined its framework. We welcome and support it.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, in introducing the order the noble Lord the Minister said that this was one of the most voluminous orders that we had had before us. I hasten to assure him that the size of the order will not dictate the length of my speech. I think I spoke long enough on the last order. However, some things should be said. I want to pose the question right away: why are the Government so resistant to bringing about a gaming board in Northern Ireland? On setting up the gaming board in Great Britain the Government said that they were doing so because they believed that the coming into being of such a board would prevent criminal elements from having any significant say in gaming in Great Britain. If it is good for Great Britain, the Northern Ireland industry is asking for exactly the same type of treatment. One would go far and wide to find a parallel, because this industry is saying, "Let us have a gaming board. Let it be constituted by personnel of integrity, people who will ensure that
1530
there is no criminal involvement in gaming in Northern Ireland". It is to the credit of the amusement industry in Northern Ireland that it wants to impose restrictions on the possibility of any criminal element being involved. The Government say, "No". I do not believe that there can be any adequate answer to that attitude.
We hear repeatedly, and Ministers are foremost in coming to the Dispatch Box to say it, that the Government regard the Northern Ireland Assembly as a worthwhile institution. They say that it is composed of elected representatives who have been elected by the will of the people in Northern Ireland and therefore their voice should be listened to. That Assembly is unrepresentative at the moment in its sittings. It is mainly the majority community that is represented. There are a few members of the Alliance Party, but there is a total absence of the minority community as represented by Sinn Fein and the SDLP. However, those who were elected and have taken their seats in the Assembly have deliberated in the Assembly Committee on this order. They came to a conclusion which was unanimous and made 15 recommendations to the Government. The Government say that they will accept two of those recommendations but will not accept the other 13.
That is blatantly unfair because the Government are not as representative or as closely in touch with opinion in Northern Ireland as Members of the Assembly, because no Government Minister has had to seek votes throughout the constitutencies in Northern Ireland. I am well aware that I do not have a vote to speak here this afternoon. The Government should listen more intently to the voice of the Assembly because they keep saying repeatedly that it is an elected Assembly and performs some useful functions.
I listened to the debate in another place. I do not want to break any other procedural conventions in this House, but I heard the Under-Secretary of State who piloted this order through the other place say, to paraphrase his words, that he had absolutely no knowledge of the subject and what knowledge he had was not based on anything so vulgar as experience, but that he did once go into a betting shop. My God! He once went into a betting shop! He was the Minister in charge of piloting this order through the House. What a terrible admission to make in the House of Commons!
I go into a betting shop nearly every day of the week. I back horses, I back dogs, I do the pools; and as soon as this debate is over I shall have a very large gin and tonic. I do not think that that is anything to be ashamed of. But the elected Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, representing as they do opinion in Northern Ireland, would be more in tune with what would be acceptable or not acceptable in Northern Ireland. The Minister has already put himself out of court by saying that he committed the terrible sin of going into a betting shop once in his life. From whom did he seek advice? Did he seek it from the civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office? Did he seek it from the police in Northern Ireland? Did he talk to all the Sabbatarians in the Civil Service? Did he talk to the non-drinking fraternity in the RUC? From whom

1531
did he seek this advice? I believe that there are elements within the Civil Service and within the RUC who would be totally opposed to some of the restrictions which are placed on the Northern Ireland community by this order.
4 p.m.
I recognise that there is a very real difficulty in relation to the para-military organisations; and the Government quite rightly want to take whatever steps they can to make sure that the activities of the paramilitary organisations, both of the extreme Republican and the extreme Loyalist kind, are restricted. Formerly representing West Belfast, and knowing of the existence in these areas of extreme Republican clubs and extreme Loyalist clubs (because West Belfast at that time had extreme Loyalist and extreme Republican areas), I believe that there is absolutely no doubt that the para-military organisations are in control of some of the clubs in those ghettos. The fact is that they are asking to have numerous gaming machines, which have an attraction for young people. Once those young people are attracted into those clubs, they immediately become under para-military pressure to join one or other of their organisations. I think it right that the Government should take whatever steps they can to ensure that no machines of this kind are allowed to be operated in those clubs.
But those clubs are situated in areas in Belfast and in Derry, I suppose, and in Newry, I suppose, which can be very clearly identified; they are the Republican areas and Loyalist areas of Derry and Newry. But the vast majority of clubs in Northern Ireland are frequented by decent people. This applies throughout Northern Ireland, including the city of Belfast. Outside the ghettoes, there are a large majority of clubs which operate quite legitimately and in the interests of their members. I do not think that the Government by trying to impose restrictions on para-military clubs, should apply those restrictions to what would otherwise be quite legitimate clubs.
The restriction of two machines per pub on publicans is also very unfair. The publicans in Belfast pay rates and pay staff. Their overheads are much higher than the overheads involved in running a club elsewhere in Northern Ireland. I think that the publican fraternity in Northern Ireland has been very harshly dealt with over a number of years. There would not be any clubs of the type to which I have just referred, the type under the control of the paramilitary organisations, had it not been for the actions of the para-military organisations in blowing up pubs, causing explosions in pubs, in both the Loyalist and the Republican areas. When these para-military organiations cause explosions to wipe out the public-houses, then they begin to operate clubs of their own in those areas. It is like the black taxis on the Falls Road in Belfast and on the Shankhill Road. The paramilitary organisations burned all the buses that were operated by the public transport. As soon as there were no buses left, they then began to bring over a lot of black taxis from London; and we have the black-taxi trade in both Loyalist and Republican areas.
I can understand the restrictions that the Minister may want to impose, and I would certainly support him on the restrictions that he wants to place on these
1532
organisations. But I can see no valid reason why there cannot be a gaming board. The only objection that I would raise is on the residential qualifications which are imposed upon directors of the organisations which are mentioned in this legislation. It appears that one has to live in Northern Ireland. I can quite understand the logic of that but there are a few cases involved in this legislation where people who have formerly lived in Northern Ireland still carry on their business in that area. They are now living in England and are to be "disfranchised", or not allowed to be directors. Again, I think that the reasoning behind the Government's intention was to prevent some mafioso-type characters from London taking over in Northern Ireland.
All I can say to that is that we have our own mafiosi in Northern Ireland, and they are very well able to carry out their own requirements. Someone from outside, whether from London or Sicily, would be very easily identified by the republican or the loyalist sections of the community in Northern Ireland and might find himself getting his kneecaps blown off; so I think this was an unnecessary restriction that was placed on people who formerly lived in Northern Ireland and who still have connections there.
As I say, it has taken a long time for this legislation to come to fruition. An honourable Member speaking in the other place said that the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland would not want to see machines in either clubs or pubs. I know the constituency that he represents, but I do not think that he is expressing the view of the Northern Ireland people, because there are many people in Northern Ireland who want to see legitimate interests operating. I think they are entitled to have those interests catered for.
On the question of lotteries, the Government have said that lotteries should not be made available in Northern Ireland. My Lords, lotteries are lotteries, and premium bonds are lotteries. Many thousands, if not millions, of people listen to their radios every Saturday or Sunday morning to find out whether their number has come up in the national lottery, otherwise known as premium bonds. If it is legitimate here, then it should be legitimate in Northern Ireland, if in fact people want lotteries. I do not think there is any great clamour for them, but on the other hand I do not think that any unreasonable restrictions should be placed on them.
On the question of the machines in the clubs, I think it may be that on advice which will be given to the Minister he may be able to increase the number of machines that are allowed to be operated legitimately in those clubs. But I ask myself: from whom will the Minister—because it will be the Northern Ireland Office which will be overseeing this legislation—be seeking this advice? If there was a gaming board, he could seek advice from the gaming board because its members would be appointed with those functions in mind. But if the Minister seeks advice from local authorities, from certain people in the RUC, from some of the courts or from some of the legal representatives, he is liable to get conflicting advice. And if, as he has said in another part of this building, he has absolutely no experience of gambling or gaming, he may come to the wrong conclusions.
I do not think this order has been given the attention that it should have been given. I believe that more

1533
recommendations promulgated by the Northern Ireland Assembly should have been accepted. I believe that the Government are right to take whatever action is possible to stamp out paramilitary involvement in those clubs, but I do not believe that enough consideration has been given to this order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, for taking part in the discussion of this order. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has been able to give us, if I may put it so vulgarly, the benefit of his experience. However, I will say more about that later if time permits: I am aware that your Lordships have other business and I will try not to delay that for too long.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies—and we are grateful for his remarks—referred to the consultations that we might have held with outside interests on the contents. Over the years (and these are more than a few) the Government received numerous representations from many different sections of the community, all of whom had an interest in the reform of the law in Northern Ireland relating to betting, gaming and lotteries—not all, as the noble Lord will appreciate, constructive. Many of these organisations deplored any form of betting, gaming or lotteries, or indeed amusements of this type. But before publishing any of their proposals the Government had extensive discussions with any bodies which were known to have views on particular aspects of the law or on particular sections of what we have been discussing in this particular order. When the proposal for the draft legislation was published last year, all the interested parties who had not already made their views known to the Government were urged to do so. I am able to tell your Lordships that many bodies availed themselves of that particular opportunity.
I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that in addition there was full consultation with the Royal Ulster Constabulary prior to and during the preparation of the draft order. I shall convey his thoughts to (what did he call it?) the non-gambling or non-drinking section of the RUC. That will no doubt be treated with "horse" or, perhaps, "greyhound" laughs tonight. I shall convey his compliments to that august and brave body of men. I have certainly found that some of them are non-drinking, but not so many as the noble Lord clearly has.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was also concerned about extending the consultation period. We were anxious that the introduction of this legislation should not be unduly—and I stress that word—delayed. Normally the consultation period on legislation of this type is limited to six weeks, but because of the complexity—the bulk of this particular report and, indeed, this legislation—the Government decided that the period should be extended and that nine weeks would probably be adequate in this case. But I stress that full consideration was given to every single view which was expressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred to a Gaming Board. I enjoyed the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt,
1534
about the Mafioso. No doubt writs will soon fly from that esteemed firm Messrs. Sue, Grabbit amp; Runne", if the noble Lord is not careful about deploring one section of the community or another. But the need for the Gaming Board in Great Britain arose primarily from the decision to allow what I am advised are commercial gaming clubs here in Great Britain. But since there is no apparent evidence of a demand for such clubs in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, the order does not provide for them—we consider that the setting up of a Gaming Board would not be justified. But the certification and the policing functions which are related to other types of gaming activities which are carried out by the board in Great Britain will be discharged, in appropriate cases, by other bodies in Northern Ireland, which include courts, local authorities, the police and, for certain purposes, the department.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made a number of points. He asked where I sought advice. I am afraid that the order does not attempt to stop any gambling. What it seeks to do is to allow many forms of gambling or games of chance to take place under adequate control. I am sure that the noble Lord would be at one with that.
The noble Lord referred to gaming machines in certain clubs. The huge majority of the clubs, of course, are law-abiding, but, as he will know, and your Lordships I am sure would accept, it is simply not possible to differentiate in legislation such as that which we have before us between those who are good and those who are less reputable among the club fraternity.
The noble Lord mentioned the licensed trade in Northern Ireland. I appreciate that they feel they are being unfairly treated compared with clubs in that the registered clubs would be permitted to have two of these gaming machines and the pubs would not be able to have any at all for the present. But the fact, which may be regrettable, is that because of police advice about the prevailing situation of security, the Government felt it necessary to exercise really tight control over the types of premises in which gaming machines can be installed. This is much tighter than the corresponding law in Great Britain.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, took me to task for disregarding the strong views and the recommendations of the Assembly. I accepted one of the major recommendations of the Assembly, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree. That was that the provisions for district council lotteries should be removed. I explained why the Government did not feel that they could accept the Assembly's other main recommendations, which were that there should be a gaming board, that commercial bingo clubs should not be permitted and that clubs should be allowed more than two gaming machines.
But the Government accepted several other minor recommendations from the Assembly; for example, that applicants for licences, including the directors of companies seeking licences, should reside in Northern Ireland. I see the noble Lord nodding. Clearly he has knowledge. I do not know whether he will have an accommodation address and be involved in that industry, will take out a bookmakers'—or, as they call themselves in Northern Ireland, guardians of the

1535
turf—licence. But that will be old hat for the noble Lord. Certainly, we insist that applicants should reside in Northern Ireland, but the noble Lord himself questioned the acceptance of that recommendation.
I conclude by taking strong issue with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, about my honourable friend who I noted in col. 646 of Hansard of another place of 19th July had done such vulgar things as visiting a betting shop when discussing legislation. The noble Lord and I—he crosses himself busily—were both discussing sex shops recently. Any suggestion in your Lordships' House, or anywhere else, by the noble Lord that he or I would be in such establishments will be met with the full force of that great firm of libel lawyers, to which I referred earlier—I think it is Lord Strobes and Lord Gnome—which will descend with full fury on the noble Lord. On the other hand, he and I might have fruitful discussions in private as to where we can continue our researches. With that, I beg to commend the order before your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Imitations (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1985
4.17 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Food Imitations (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1985, laid before the House on 21st June, be approved. The effect of the amendment is expressly to exclude products made entirely of food ingredients from the scope of the Food Imitations (Safety) Regulations 1985 (Statutory Instrument 1985 Number 99), which your Lordships approved on 28th January this year.
Such products are already excluded where they are "food" as defined in Section 131(1) of the Food Act 1984, since food (as so defined) is excluded from the definition of "goods" in Section 9(4) of the Consumer Safety Act 1978, under which the principal regulations were made. Under the latter Act, there is no power to make safety regulations in respect of things which are not "goods" as defined in Section 9(4) of the Act.
There are products made entirely from food ingredients—in particular, modelling compounds marketed for children to use in play. This has been verified by the Laboratory of the Government chemist and if ingested these products would be no more of a problem than food properly so called. My Lords, I commend this order to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st June be approved. [26th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Radio Installations) (Amendment) Regulations 1985
Merchant Shipping (Grain) Regulations 1985
Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection) (Amendment) Regulations 1985
Merchant Shipping (Fire Appliances) (Amendment) Regulations 1985
Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection) (Ships Built Before 25th May 1980) Regulations 1985
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move, That the five draft regulations laid before the House be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Merchant Shipping (Radio Installations) (Amendment) Regulations 1985, laid before the House on 5th July, be approved. With the leave of the House, I should like also to move the other four merchant shipping regulation orders standing in my name on the Order Paper.
These regulations will implement, in part, the first set of amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS 1974), which was adopted in 1981. For ease of reference, I shall refer to them as "the amendments". Various sets of regulations have already been made to apply other parts of the amendments to United Kingdom ships and to non-United Kingdom ships while the latter are within the United Kingdom or our territorial waters. The five sets of regulations to be approved will complete all the regulations necessary to implement the amendments.
The 1978 Protocol to the 1974 Convention required that no more favourable treatment in meeting the requirements of the convention—and that includes amendments to it—be given to ships of non-convention countries. It is in this context that these regulations extend to ships of all other countries while they are within the United Kingdom or our territorial waters.
The amendments were laid by Command on 5th October 1982. Their purpose is to improve the safety of ships and of those who sail in them. Overall, they provide for improvements in passenger and cargo ship construction; steering gear systems for tankers; radiotelephony and telegraphy and radar systems; inert gas systems; fire protection, detection and extinction; and for the carriage of grain.
I trust that your Lordships will find this brief explanation satisfactory. I shall of course be able to deal in more detail with each regulation separately if any of your Lordships wishes me so to do. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th June be approved. [27th Report from the Joint Committee.];
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th June be approved. [27th Report from the Joint Committee.];
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th July be approved. [28th Report from the Joint Committee.];
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th July be approved. [28th Report from the Joint Committee.];
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th July be approved. [28th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, any orders which seek to implement international conventions, and particularly those which deal with the safety of life at sea, deserve our serious consideration. I noted that the noble Lord referred to discussions with the shipping industry. I do not know whether or not that included the appropriate trade unions but I am informed that the National Union of Seamen has considered these orders and found them eminently satisfactory, and therefore the Opposition welcome them.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motions agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past four o'clock.

  TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT: EC POLICY
  TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT: EC POLICY
  LAWBREAKING AND THE BROADCASTING AUTHORITIES
  LAWBREAKING AND THE BROADCASTING AUTHORITIES
  REGIONAL CRIME SQUADS
  REGIONAL CRIME SQUADS
  VIDEO RECORDINGS CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY
  VIDEO RECORDINGS CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY
  WORKS OF ART: ACCEPTANCE IN LIEU OF TAX
  WORKS OF ART: ACCEPTANCE IN LIEU OF TAX
  CIVIL SERVICE UNIFIED GRADING
  CIVIL SERVICE UNIFIED GRADING
  NATIONAL MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES: INCOME
  NATIONAL MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES: INCOME
  MAIN BEAM HEADLIGHTS: USE IN LONDON
  MAIN BEAM HEADLIGHTS: USE IN LONDON
  SEA-GOING AND COASTAL SHIPS: STATISTICS
  SEA-GOING AND COASTAL SHIPS: STATISTICS