My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the Government are already assisting the hotel industry by encouraging the development of tourism. This year some £56 million is being provided through the statutory tourist boards for promotional and project support.

My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for his Answer. But is he aware that for the past 18 months or so I have had a "No Day Named" Motion on the Order Paper, and this is a kind of hors-d'oeuvre in the hopes of a fuller debate in the future? May I ask my noble friend two supplementary questions: First, could he comment on the relationships and discussions between the various tourist boards and the hotel industry, particularly in development areas; and does he think there is sufficient rapport here? Secondly, with regard to the Hotel and Catering Industries Training Board, can my noble friend say what advice is being given to school-leavers and others as to the advantages of the catering and hotel industry in this country, and they are many, bearing in mind that British cookery and catering is very often second to none?

My Lords, of course your Lordships will be aware of, and do not need my noble friend nor indeed the Government to reiterate, the primacy of British cookery, especially as it is exhibited day by day in your Lordships' House—or, I should say, consumed. My brief answer to both my noble friend's questions is that, yes, indeed, the Government are aware of the great contribution which the catering and hotel industry can make to British tourism, especially in development areas. My noble friend and the House will be aware that financial assistance to the catering and hotel industry in development areas is part of a much wider view of taxation and fiscal arrangements which are currently under discussion by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In reply to my noble friend's other supplementary question, the tourism and catering industries are a major source of employment and support throughout the country, and especially in development areas.

My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that the bulk of tourists come from this country to the Highlands and other tourist parts of Britain, and that the greatest help he could give would be to persuade his right honourable friends to reduce the interest rate to stimulate the economy?

My Lords, we do, of course, appreciate that tourism makes a very substantial contribution to the economy in various parts of the country—and nowhere more than in my own part of the world and that of my neighbour, which is Scotland. My right honourable friend is doing everything that he can to assist this particular industry, but there are competing claims and other industries for my right honourable friend's attention.

My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind, following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that in my part of the West of Scotland, 90 per cent. of the tourists come from the South by car, and that the biggest disincentive is not interest rates but the price of petrol, which is almost entirely under the control of the Government?

My Lords, I will indeed hear that very important point in mind. I am sure your Lordships will be aware that my noble friend is not entirely cut off since the developments of the weekend and that now at last we do have alternative forms of transport to Scotland. But he is quite correct in saying that, in his particular part of the world, motor transport is the most important form of arrival and departure.

My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the University of Surrey has a faculty of hotel catering which is an extremely popular one and the only one in the country? Is he further aware that the Government's recent financial cuts dealt to Surrey were to the tune of some 25 per cent? Is he aware that, if he wants to see hotel and catering trades encouraged by further training for undergraduates to become graduates in this important activity, it would be wise to be a little more liberal with finance to the only university that has a faculty for this subject?

My Lords, I shall certainly bear in mind the comments of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, but I am sure that he and your Lordships will bear in mind, also, that the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board, and indeed the industry in general, are aware of the constant need to provide training opportunities which will help convince school-leavers and indeed graduates that worthwhile careers in hotels and catering exist, and, we hope, will continue to exist and increase.

My Lords, I do not wish to introduce an acrid atmosphere of international competition in regard to the tourist trade. But will the noble Lord the Minister bear in mind the interests of Wales? Quite apart from the development areas, there are very attractive areas in Wales where the tourist trade need any assistance that they can get from the Government.

My Lords, I shall of course bear in mind the eloquent words, as always, of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, at this time, when hotel receipts like those of many other industries are tending to fall, there is understandable fear in the industry that the review of the development areas, of which my noble friend has spoken, will result in large parts of this country, where the tourist and hotel industry is important, being excluded from the help they have had over recent years?

Yes, my Lords, but may I stress to my noble friend and your Lordships that the Government have decided that Section 4 Assistance under the Development of Tourism Act 1969 should be available countrywide, so that support for tourist projects should be based on considerations directly related to the needs of tourism as such. I would stress also that detailed arrangements for the future operation of this scheme are still being considered, and we shall announce them as soon as possible.

My Lords, is my noble friend prepared to do anything about the proliferation of tourist boards, which I mentioned in this House about nine months ago? Is he aware that, when kept a small hotel in the Hebrides, I had to deal with four tourist boards? Is this not rather a waste of money and Government paper? Could not the number of tourist boards dealing with various areas of the United Kingdom be cut and therefore money be saved for other purposes?

My Lords, I was not aware of my noble friend's Question of the recent past. The only statutory tourist boards referred to in my original Answer were the English, Scottish, Welsh and, of course, British Tourist Boards. If I missed any, and if my noble friend can help me, perhaps we can discuss this later over a bottle of the excellent beverage which I understand comes from the island where my noble friend used to reside and to keep an hotel.

Next Question!

My Lords—

My Lords, as a previous president of the London Tourist Board, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he is aware that there is a growing concern that there are too many tourist boards in this country and that the question of my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton has a real power behind it, and that the time has come for the Government to look at the number of tourist boards in this country? I have declared my interests. Ought we not to tidy up the situation a little for the genuine benefit of tourism throughout the entire country?

My Lords, my noble friend, as always, is extremely eloquent. He is this time even more correct, and I will bear in mind his comments. I am very grateful for them.

My Lords, the noble Lord is no doubt aware that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Sproat, is currently carrying out an investigation into the question of the responsibilities of the individual statutory tourist boards.

My Lords, indeed my honourable friend is at the moment carrying out an investigation, but I am afraid I could not pre-empt what he might have to say. If the noble Lord would keep in touch with me, I can inform him as to how these discussions are proceeding.

My Lords, in his concern for the hotel industry—

Next Question!

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has been trying to ask a question. I think the general tenor is that we should move on to the next Question. Perhaps if the noble Lord will ask his question we can move on after that.

My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Earl. In his concern for the hotel industry, is the noble Lord keeping himself informed as to the number of international chains of hotels, mainly based in the United States of America, that tend to undermine and take the place of the traditional British hotel industry? Is he aware that this is a worldwide problem and one that we could well do without?

My Lords, I would disagree with the noble Lord in his question, in so far as he believes that any improvement, or any increase in hotel development and the hotel industry in the United Kingdom is in any way harmful. I am sure the noble Lord and your Lordships would appreciate that any foreign- or overseas-based chain or group in an industry which sought to undermine—those were the noble Lord's words, not mine—British traditions of good hospitality and catering, would, I believe, be doomed to failure.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, Parliament will be informed of our proposals as soon as possible after the Recess.

My Lords, I think the Minister is aware that I wish to be helpful and I realise there are difficulties. Does he recall that as long ago as 13th May I said that I was glad to receive a more positive response on this matter? Today my reply would seem to have been rather over-optimistic. May I ask the noble Lord if he realises that those of us who are concerned with consumer affairs in this country are finding it extremely difficult to retain our enthusiasm in view of these constant setbacks? May I ask him, finally, if, having said what he has said today as Secretary of State, he really and truly does mean business this time?

My Lords, I am sure nobody would ever feel that the noble Baroness is losing her enthusiasm either for this or for any other subject. I entirely understand her feelings about the delay which has occurred in dealing with these matters. The consultative document was issued last December. The representations which we received did not show the unanimity of view for which we had hoped. We are, however, now working on the matter as diligently and rapidly as we can, and I hope that we shall have something to report in due course.

My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister accept that there really is a very great sense of urgency about this? Where the nationalised industries are concerned, they are dealing with commodities of very great importance to everybody in the country, and there has been great concern about price increases and the lack of consumer protection in these industries.

My Lords, I entirely appreciate the sense of concern which is felt about this. These are important matters. It is important that we get the right answer, and this is why I might perhaps ask that we should be given a little more time to think about the matter.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it really is not possible to speed this matter up? It has been going on for ages. Everybody knows what they want and what they would like to have done. Why cannot the Government get on with it and do it?

My Lords, I fear that my noble friend's prior premise is not correct. The difficulty is that people do not know what they want, and it is because of the division of opinion which appeared as a result of the publication of the consultative document that we are having to take more time to look at the matter.

My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the proposals will deal with the future of consumer representation in relation to nationalised industries when they become privatised?

My Lords, I think the noble Baroness is going outside the scope of the present study, which deals with consumer councils affecting the nationalised industries and not arrangements that would be made when industries are no longer nationalised.

My Lords, the particular point that I was concerned with was to do with British Airways.

My Lords, I can only repeat what I have already said, that the present study relates to the nationalised industries. If an industry ceases to be a nationalised industry and becomes part of the private sector, that is a different question altogether. Indeed, one of the reasons for privatisation is to remove the monopoly power which has hitherto existed and is one of the major reasons why these consumer councils were set up.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, from reports received it would appear that hospitals have generally coped with the industrial action much better than might have been expected. I have no hesitation in saying that this is due to the magnificent efforts of those staff who have remained at their posts and continued to care for patients. I urge the trade unions to reflect upon the futility of their present action, to call it off, and to return to the negotiating table.

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that admirable reply, is he nonetheless aware that the efforts of the magnificent staff who are remaining at their posts are at many great hospitals, such as St. Thomas' across the river, being gravely impeded by the action of the pickets, who deny entry of essential supplies and indeed, in many cases, of patients? Do the Government accept that where human wellbeing and, indeed, human life are involved it really is essential that these supplies should be admitted, whatever action the pickets may see fit to take?

My Lords, I certainly deplore the fact that in many cases, including at St. Thomas' as my noble friend says, the action of the pickets has led to very serious effects on the running of the hospital. Emergency services have in general been maintained, although there have been one or two cases where even that modest level of service has not been achieved. Perhaps I could say that on the occasion of the explosions in London recently the pickets who were on duty at once went back to their posts to treat those who were injured.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—

My Lords—

My Lords, I do not know whether I can help. I think there was a slight contretemps when both the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, got up. I think perhaps if the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, put his question, that might solve the problem.

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl; I am somewhat flattered. Is the noble Lord aware that everyone will, of course, abhor any action which will inconvenience and cause hardship to patients? But is the noble Lord aware too—and there is a degree of hypocrisy about people in public services not striking—that this situation has been caused by a regrettable lack of understanding of the poor pay of staff in the National Health Service? Is he further aware that under the Government's new scheme and new offer—taking into account that if they are in residence they will be facing increased charges—nurses will receive less than they receive at present? I have seen a porter's pay slip this week for £60 net. It is on the supplementary benefits scale. It is a disgrace, and that is the real reason why dedicated people are forced to reach a position which we all regret.

My Lords, let me deal first with the nurses. The question of the increase in charges for nurses' accommodation, if there are to be any, is presently being considered by the Whitley Council. No agreement has been reached, but when it is, it will be an agreement between the two sides that make up the Whitley Council in that regard. But the kind of increases that are being considered in the Whitley Council would in no way absorb the increases, as the noble Lord is suggesting. Only about 10 per cent. of nurses actually live in the accommodation to which the noble Lord refers; the rest of them, of course, live in accommodation away from their hospitals, with their parents or whatever, and they, too, are no doubt experiencing increases of some sort.

As to the general question of the low pay of health service workers, of course there are some low-paid workers in the health service, but I suggest that the pay that they receive is very comparable with the pay received in other industries for parallel work. If there are any minor difficulties that need to be eradicated, they of course can be discussed in the Whitley Council. Taken all in all, we are making available some £400 million in respect of the present pay offer, which is a very substantial sum.

My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that, under existing law, it is open to the pickets to contend that they are entitled, in support of their own pay claim, not only to interfere with the due performance of the contracts for the supply of medical materials, but also to seek to secure that persons do not deliver these supplies? In that situation, would my noble friend the Minister not agree that where human life, human suffering and human wellbeing are put in hazard, there is a case for a revision of the law in this particular regard?

My Lords, the present law, as I understand it—and I would want to stop short of offering your Lordships a definitive definition of the legal position—is that peaceful picketing at one's place of work is perfectly lawful. Of course, if pickets go beyond that and break the law, then that is a matter for the police in the pat titular circumstances prevailing. As for a review of the law, as my noble friend suggests, that is a rather profound question, if I may say so, which perhaps deserves more careful consideration than I can give on my feet at the moment.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in a really civilised society there would be no strikes in the hospital service? When negotiations and conciliation could not settle the issue, arbitration would be the accepted order of the day. Is the Minister further aware that, by refusing arbitration, the Government themselves are largely responsible for the present position?

My Lords, I would not accept that for a moment. Arbitration would, I presume, be some system—which is what the noble Lord is thinking—whereby some third party would call upon the Government to make more funds available for the purposes of the present offer. I have to tell your Lordships that there is no more money available and arbitration is not, therefore, an option.

My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that it is not merely the entry of medical supplies which is in difficulty, but because of picketing certain social services are having difficulty in getting equipment for the use of the disabled out of hospitals?

My Lords, I am indeed aware of the difficulties which my noble friend describes. That is why I have asked that the action should be ended forthwith.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if the Government had the courage to appoint an arbitrator, he would take full cognisance of the Government's view, because the trade unions believe that part of his remit ought to be to see that this sort of thing does not happen again? Is the Minister aware that, as regards this dispute, the Trades Union Congress issued a code of conduct accepted by the trade unions involved, which says that all fuel, oxygen, medical and vital supplies must not be interfered with? Is the Minister further aware that if he will supply the Confederation of Health Service Employees with details of what has been alleged in this Chamber this afternoon, they are quite prepared to give of their level best and to make visits by senior secretaries to the region concerned to see that the TUC's code of conduct in this dispute is fully adhered to? Would the noble Lord be prepared to let the confederation know the details, so that they can stop any abuses of the code of conduct?

My Lords, I am aware of the fact that the trade unions have issued a code of conduct in this matter. The pity is that it has not always been honoured. Emergency services have been withdrawn in some areas, notably, in Leicestershire; I think that there was a case in Lincoln and, indeed, in Liverpool.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I cannot recall a single Question being put by noble Lords opposite when the consultants went on strike a few years ago?

My Lords, if we want to bandy across the Floor of the House the relative positions of our respective parties over the years, I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the present position of his party as compared with the position of mine at the time of the 1979 dispute.

My Lords, since my general view on trade union and other behaviour is well known, I should like to ask the Minister whether he realises just how chillingly his answer on the question of arbitration struck people such as myself? He said, if I recall his exact words, that presumably an arbitrator would ask the Government to find more funds and that there are no more funds available, and so there is no point in having an arbitration. I ask the Minister to reflect on that. The point of an arbitrator is that he will weigh up the pros and the cons. He might just as easily come down on the other side as to come down on the side that the Minister assumed. That is my first point.

The second point is that if we are to avoid this type of situation in an essential, humanitarian public service, and if we are to rule out any form of solution other than the Government's predetermined one, then how is such a situation ever to be resolved? I know that the noble Lord says that he cannot think on his feet, which suggests to me that he thinks through the wrong part of his anatomy, but I would really ask him if he would go away and reflect upon what his answer really implies?

My Lords, on the question of avoiding this type of situation in the future, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that we do need to avoid this hassle every year in the futute. That is why my right honourable friend has initiated negotiations with the nurses to establish a machinery which we very much hope will be in place by next year to fulfil this function, and that is why we stand ready to have parallel negotiations with the other trade unions to achieve a similar machinery, if only they would come and talk to us about it.

My Lords, has the Minister had time to look at the report of the Public Accounts Committee which was published today and which indicates that there are 1,100 beds in new hospitals which are empty, not because of industrial action, but because of lack of funds? Does not all this add up to the fact that the Government are not giving sufficient priority to a fundamental review of the need for financial changes in the National Health Service?

My Lords, I agree that it is the case in times of extreme financial stringency as regards this country that we have to set an order of priorities. The sort of problems which the noble Baroness describes are not always simply a result of shortage of funds. Sometimes they are an ordering of priorities. within the district health authority or within the regional health authority. I certainly look forward to the day when more funds can be made available to the health service. In the meantime, we are thinking of funds of something like £14,500 million next year lot the health service, which is a very substantial sum.

My Lords—

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene but we have spent 29 minutes on three Questions. There is yet another one to go, and if your Lordships think it appropriate, I suggest that, despite the noble Lord, Lord Molloy's intervention, we ought to move on.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his speech on 6th July that low pay settlements are essential in both the public and private sectors in order to maintain economic recovery and improve employment prospects. Whether firms need to pay higher or lower than average increases in individual cases is for them to judge in the light of the particular financial and market considerations.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that I make no personal criticism of the Heron chairman? Indeed, in the present régime of the free-for-all I accept what the company said—namely,

"that the payment was not unusually large".

But do the Government really believe that we will build a stable society if pay and perks go up in that way at the same time as we ask the student nurses to accept no more than 69p a week, when we say that we cannot afford to honour our pledge on unemployment benefit of 5 per cent. extra, and when the Chancellor makes the sort of statement he did about lower pay settlements being absolutely inevitable?

My Lords, the Government have no responsibility for the pay of the chairman of the Heron Corporation, which is entirely a matter for that body. The general point made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is entirely valid; namely, that excessive pay settlements lead to a higher level of unemployment. I am sure that that is something which the noble Lord would deplore just as much as I do.

My Lords, how does the noble Lord the Minister relate phenomenal salaries on the one hand and low wages on the other—which was admitted by one of his colleagues this afternoon in reply to a Question—not to Government policy, but to the Conservative concept of one nation?

My Lords, in the public sector the Government are responsible for finding the money, and therefore the level of pay settlements must be determined in the end by that factor. As regards the private sector, it is of value to everybody to ensure that we have a vigorous private sector which will provide employment for all our people. I am not in any way saying that the Government are defending or attacking the particular increase to which the noble Lord draws attention. I have been dealing with the general issue of policy raised by my right honourable friend the Chancellor in his speech.

My Lords, would not my noble friend the Minister agree that the majority of that pay increase will be returned to the state through taxation and will, therefore, benefit the health service and all the other state social security funds?

My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right in drawing attention to the fact that a substantial proportion of high incomes does, in fact, go in taxation. But it would be entirely wrong for me to be drawn into a discussion as to the merits or otherwise of a particular pay increase for an individual.

My Lords, although I congratulate the noble Lord on his formally correct reply to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, may I ask him quite explicitly whether or not he would agree that the victim of this unhealthy interest by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick—the chairman of the company—is the kind of entrepreneur whom the Government ought to welcome, bearing in mind that since 1957 he has built up from scratch, without a penny of Government subsidy, a business with a turnover of £400 million, employing 5,000 staff, of whom 3,000 are in this country? Ought that not to be welcomed by the Government?

My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty in responding to the noble Lord, because I would not share his strictures on the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. On the other hand, I would agree with what he says in the remainder of his question.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his Government's approach to this whole matter is rather less than even-handed? Is the noble Lord aware that, whenever it comes to a question of wages as distinct from salaries, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is most precise in what he says and in the pressure which his Government try to exert in keeping wages down? Is the noble Lord aware that it appears dubious to most of us that this gentleman, however talented he may be, would find it easy to justify a rise of 255 per cent. on the basis of increased productivity, about which the Government are so much concerned?

My Lords, I have made it clear that I do not propose to enter into a debate about the merits or otherwise of this particular pay figure. On the general point that the noble Lord raises, what my right honourable friend has said and what, in fact, I myself have said applies to pay generally, and not to wages as distinct from pay. In fact, the difference so commonly drawn between wages and salaries is not entirely a justified one.

My Lords, does the noble Lord think that the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in regard to the Question of my noble friend Lord Beswick, that it displayed an unhealthy interest, is appropriate language to be used in this Chamber?

My Lords, with respect, that is not a matter for me, but had the noble and learned Lord been listening with care, he would have heard that I dissociated myself from the comment made about the noble Lord, Lord Beswick.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that my admiration for the chairman of the Heron Corporation is equally as great as that of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross? That consideration does not come into it at all. What we are considering here is what sort of a society we are trying to build. When he asked for a reduction in pay increases, the Chancellor said that sanity and realism in the face of the present high level of unemployment might well mean no pay increases at all. In addition to sanity and realism, could not we also think in terms of social justice?

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord has picked out the phrase "sanity and realism", because this is what is really required in our economic affairs. The greatest of all social injustice is the unemployment which flows from excessive wage increases and pay increases secured by other people in the economy.

My Lords, is it not remarkable that in 37 minutes we have been able to get through three full-scale debates?

My Lords—

My Lords, on that very appropriate note, I think that we should move on. Possibly unusually bright lights in the Chamber at the moment have a stimulating effect on your Lordships in asking so many questions, but I think it would be proper to move on.

moved the amendment:

After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:

My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. It is a mild amendment and I cannot understand that the Government should have any objection to it. In elections, and especially in Northern Ireland, you can perhaps get sometimes a little intimidation. Perhaps "little" is too small a word to use. Therefore, it is essential that this amendment is included in the Bill.

I can see no reason why it cannot be included. I should have thought that it would be in the interests of Dublin and the southern Irish Government to be quite certain that, if there is a constitutional change in the status of Northern Ireland, inasmuch as it was such a big change the North of Ireland would decide to go into the South of Ireland, the southern Irish Government would want to be sure that it was a really widely accepted voice. What they do not want—I have heard many responsible people in the South of Ireland say this—if you ever have a united Ireland, is a large number of disgruntled northerners to be in their midst. I ask the Government seriously to consider this amendment, for personally I can see no harm in it.

My Lords, while not supporting this amendment at this time I would like to pursue the question of the guarantee. Having read the Official Report a number of times under my noble friend's instructions, I am still not fully satisfied with the Government's attitude towards the unity of the United Kingdom. On Second Reading my noble friend said: "

Northern Ireland … will remain so until its inhabitants freely determine otherwise".—[Official Report, 8/7/82; col. 904.]

To my mind, this is a fairly sinister word which does not appear in the actual wording of the Act; because "until" means there is a finality about it and that conditions will definitely apply so that eventually the people of Northern Ireland will be made to, juggled into, or slipped into the position of wishing to change. We then come to the Committee stage. I feel very strongly about this question of the unity of the United Kingdom. We have not taken a neutral stand on Scottish nationalism. We have taken a very strong stand there, saying that unity of Great Britain is extremely important; and action, sentiment, warmth and everything is expressed on all sides to show there ought to be actual unity.

In the Committee stage on the question of the continued unity of the United Kingdom my noble friend said:

"It is not that the Government are not enthusiastic … but there is an inconsistency surely in resting your policy … on the principle of self-determination … and then, as it were, trying to load the question in such a way that goes against the principles of self-determination ".—[Official Report, 20/7/82; col. 798.]

With that I am entirely in agreement, but I went on to ask whether the Government did not feel it was their duty in governing Northern Ireland to make clear that it was their intention to do so in such a way that all people, regardless of creed, colour, religion or anything else wished to remain within the United Kingdom because the unity of the United Kingdom as such, its strategic importance and every other factor is very important. I believe that is a principle of the Conservative Party.

I go further on this because on 25th February my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said, in answer to a Question from Mr. Marlow:

"We should seek to show that there are great advantages for all the people of Northern Ireland in remaining part of the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, (Commons) 25/2/82; col. 972.]

That, I believe, is the correct position, but when I pressed the noble Earl I could not get him to say that, because there are two issues. One is the unity of the United Kingdom, which I believe to be vital. The second is to demonstrate to the people of Northern Ireland—all the people of Northern Ireland—the advantages of being in the United Kingdom as such. That is why I am speaking on the amendment.

My Lords, I am very happy to stand corrected by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, and to qualify what I said, admittedly and in fairness to myself in a slightly different context and at an earlier stage, by saying that of course no change would be made without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland; and as I said at the same stage also to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, even if there were to be the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland to a constitutional change, that constitutional change would have to pass through both Houses of the British Parliament.

I am also quite happy to agree with my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard that very few people in my experience in the Irish Republic would wish the unity of the island, even if there were to be a narrow majority in its favour in the North, if a substantial minority were to be opposed to it, and likely to be violently opposed to it. That is certainly my experience of the Irish Republic; but, as I also explained at some length in response to an almost identical amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, during the Committee stage, there are many reasons why it would be wrong, both absolutely and in the context of this particular Bill, to amend Section 1 of the Constitution Act in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is proposing. The Bill before the House envisages a system of government based ultimately on the Northern Ireland Constitution Act. Of course, the Bill makes changes to that Act, for it reflects an altogether different approach to the devolution of legislative and executive powers, and a different approach to the formation of a Northern Ireland Administration. But much in the earlier Act will remain unaffected by the present Bill, including certain key constitutional provisions.

One of these provisions, the biggest key of all, is the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland's position as a constituent part of the United Kingdom remains as in Section 1 of the Constitution Act; and as your Lordships know, this section provides that there can be no change in that status without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a border poll, and there can be periodic polls at intervals of not less than 10 years. The section is, therefore, one of the fundamental premises on which the Government's approach in this Bill is based. It is not affected by the Bill but it is everywhere presupposed by it. As I said at another stage, it is part of the framework in which everything else, including the detailed administrative arrangements proposed in this Bill which I outlined earlier, is set. Given the nature and purposes of the Bill we believe that it would be wrong in principle as well as highly imprudent in practice to seek to modify Section 1 to deal with hypothetical circumstances which may never arise, or which may arise in wholly different circumstances from any that we can presently envisage.

Dealing with the "imprudent in practice" point, I would commend to your Lordships the words of my noble friend Lord Vaizey on this subject at Committee stage. My noble friend concluded that it would be:

"most unwise at this particular juncture, in a Bill dealing essentially with the problems of the local jurisdiction of the Province and not with United Kingdom-wide provision, to start initiating what amounts to a major constitutional change in the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 20/7182; col. 796.]

And "in" in that connection would mean, I believe, within the United Kingdom. Of course, I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Monson, fears that great harm would result from a change in the constitutional status of the Province that did not command widespread acceptance throughout the community, and I share that fear. I understand why he accordingly seeks to apply Section 1 of the 1973 Act, a requirement upon which the Government have insisted, in a different context, in the present Bill. The tests imposed in this Bill for any proposed arrangements for devolution are designed to ensure that any such arrangements enjoy widespread cross-community support.

It is, as I have said on many occasions, a fact of political life in Northern Ireland that without such support no system of Government or political progress can be stable or durable; but the question of a test for proposals for devolution within a part of the United Kingdom is surely quite different in conception from the issue of whether a region should remain as it is. There seems to me no merit whatsoever in linking the two, and there is the grave demerit that linking the two may excite people into believing, particularly in the Province, that the two are linked. That point was made, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, most eloquently at the Committee stage. To do so would only suggest, surely, that the Government were having second thoughts about the whole constitutional base of Northern Ireland's role within the United Kingdom. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has repeatedly made clear—and I refer my noble friend Lord Brookeborough to his remarks in this context—this is not, of course, the case. I therefore urge the House not to seek to alter a provision of the 1973 Act that is well understood, whose alteration would cause a great deal of excitement and anxiety and which is, in our judgment and in the judgment of most people in the Province, in no current need whatever of revision.

My Lords, I really do not understand how a modest suffix tagged on to the end of Section 1 of the 1973 Act could cause great excitement and anxiety, underlining, as it does, what most people know to be true in their hearts anyway. What the noble Earl seems to be saying is that because no such provision existed in the 1973 Act, it should not come in now because this Bill bears so many resemblances to that Act. I agree with him that it would have been better, if change were to be made, that it had been made in 1973.

There is absolutely no reason why the noble Earl should be aware of this fact, but I have been interested in this matter for a long time and have spoken and written about it on a number of occasions over the past 10 to 12 years. This Bill, with its reiterated emphasis on the desirability, indeed need, for widespread acceptance throughout the whole community before any major and irrevocable steps are taken which would affect people's future, seems an ideal vehicle for putting these ideas into practice, given that the Long Title of the Bill permits amendments to the 1973 Act. What is more, I believe it is a question of honour. Massive concessions have been made to the Republican ideal, in the sense that Republicans are now being told in so many words that there is not the slightest moral obligation on them to give any loyalty to their country and its Head of State. Few corresponding concessions seem to have been made to those who might loosely be described as unionists. I can only speak for myself, of course, and not for other noble Lords, but I believe it is a matter of honour and I feel unable to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, I wish first to express the gratitude of Her Majesty's Government to your Lordships' House in facilitating the passage of the Bill on to the statute book before the Summer Recess.

During the last three weeks we have had the opportunity to consider, first, the fundamental principles which form the Government's policy in regard to Northern Ireland and, secondly, to scrutinise in more detail the provisions of the Bill which, as your Lordships know, seeks to give effect only to those proposals in the recent White Paper which require legislation. Our policy is in essence very simple and, I believe, realistic, and I am glad to be able to record here the overwhelming parliamentary support which we have received both in another place and in your Lordships' House.

The policy represents, in the Government's view, the best chance of making political progress in Northern Ireland by doing no more than to take full account of the political realities there. I return once again to the essential fact that no amount of rhetoric or wishful thinking can change the fact that in Northern Ireland there is a fundamental divide between two communities, two traditions, each with its distinct identity and aspirations. It is because the Government recognise, as they must, that the existence of these two traditions lies at the heart of nearly all political difficulties within the Province, that the Bill seeks to do no more than provide a framework within which a new and more fruitful life in political terms can develop in the Province, but develop only if and when the people of Northern Ireland are prepared to take up the opportunities which the Bill gives them.

The Government must also recognise that, unless the people of Northern Ireland, through their elected representatives, can work out the necessary arrangements, there is in the long run little possibility of viable political institutions being established there which can command the allegiance of men and women of goodwill on both sides of this fundamental divide. It is that need which best removes from men of violence whatever hope they may have of profiting from circumstances of continued political instability.

Let me, therefore, briefly remind your Lordships of what the Bill does and does not do. It does not impose devolution. That is not within our power, nor I believe within the power of anyone else. But the Bill allows the Northern Ireland Assembly to make proposals for any reasonable arrangements for the exercise of powers available for devolution. The Assembly could advance to full devolution in one move or in stages. The essential criterion is simple. It is that the proposals must command widespread acceptance throughout both communities. I do not need to remind your Lordships why, without such acceptance, no durable institutions are likely to develop.

The Bill also recognises that movement to this goal may be very slow indeed, and I certainly recognise that any movement will not be easy. That is one reason why the Bill will enable the Assembly, before any forms of devolution take place, to have immediately a constructive, deliberate and advisory role which will provide a valuable new input into the operation of direct rule. That is the valuable secondary effect of this legislation, and that is why I have tried to describe it as really being a Direct Rule (Improvement) Bill.

For the first time for many years, a locally elected Assembly will be able to speak with knowledge and authority about Northern Ireland affairs and subject my colleagues and myself, or our successors, to an appropriate and informed scrutiny. The Government also hope that the mere act of discharging these functions will at least accustom the various groups in the Assembly to get into the habit of working together in the common interest, and accustom the electorate of Northern Ireland to putting pressure on their representatives to work together in the common interest.

The Bill is also designed to secure such goals without requiring any group or individual to renounce or compromise deeply held political convictions, whether these should be attachment to Northern Ireland's position as a constituent part of the United Kingdom or an attachment to a united Ireland. To ask people to give up either aspiration is altogether to misunderstand the permanent nature of the divide in Northern Ireland.

The Bill leaves this Parliament not simply as the ultimate guarantor of the rights and liberties of all the people of Northern Ireland, but also as the ultimate arbiter of whether proposals for devolution do in fact command the widespread acceptance throughout the community which I mentioned earlier. In the end, therefore, I think we are concerned with only one thing: government by consent and how it can be improved and ultimately achieved in Northern Ireland.

I hope that on other occasions I have explained sufficiently why the full administrative integration of Northern Ireland with Great Britain would be quite unacceptable to the majority within the nationalist community, and why long memories and lingering suspicions—whether or not they were initially justified—would render divisive indeed attempts to increase powers of local government, unless of course they also were to achieve widespread consent across the community. If such were not achieved, peace and stability would be obstructed, and further understanding and co-operation delayed.

I also hope that I have explained why there can be no question whatsoever of any change in Northern Ireland's constitutional position within the United Kingdom unless that should be the freely-expressed wish of the majority of the Northern Ireland people. To proceed on any other basis would be wrong in principle and disastrous in practice.

I have to say that I do not believe that time is on our side in Northern Ireland. The intractable problems which continue to beset the Province—violence, unemployment, a fearsome economic decline—will not be eased by postponing the day when the inhabitants of the Province begin together the hard and slow task of political reconstruction, and try to reconcile that with the equally hard and slow mutual accommodations that will inevitably be involved. Therefore, the sooner that the necessary political movement begins, the better. I say that not simply because I believe that the rest of the United Kingdom, which—as in this terrible week I hardly need to remind the House—has shared, and continues to share, Northern Ireland's suffering, expects no less, but also because it is in the long-term best interests of the people of Northern Ireland to begin the task.

The rewards of the kind of co-operation between the various groups in Northern Ireland which we are seeking to promote could be immense. They include peace, stability, and the full development of Northern Ireland's great human and economic potential. They include also the potential for greater understanding and co-operation with the Irish Republic, which, in terms of its own political life and development, is very much affected by the situation in Northern Ireland, and whose shared interests in combating the men of violence must, I believe, be acknowledged.

The proposals that we are making may need 20 or 30 years to mature, or to take hold. Northern Ireland is not a place which is easily adaptable to the timescale of British politics. The fundamental divide is, in British terms, of ancient origin, and it will need a long time to heal, or to become obscured. Therefore all policy in respect of Northern Ireland needs modesty, tenacity, low expectation and patience, and those who seek to change policy by violent means should certainly appreciate that. This modest enabling Bill tries only to open the door on a better future for all the people of Northern Ireland and their neighbours. I commend it to the House.

My Lords, the House will be grateful for, and will welcome, the remarks of the noble Earl the Minister. During the Second Reading of the Bill I spoke of the crucial importance of the proposed measures to the people of Northern Ireland. I stated that I am convinced that the Bill is an honest attempt, and represents an honest approach by the Government, to break the logjam of polarised politics in the Province, and that I believe that the Bill could help the Northern Ireland community by affording them an opportunity to have some powers within the context of United Kingdom parliamentary democracy to decide their own destiny. That is still my position, and I wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for the meticulous, forthright and understanding way in which he has dealt with the Bill and the matters that have arisen during debate in this House.

As a citizen of Northern Ireland, and as Opposition spokesman in this House on Northern Ireland affairs, I wish to convey to all noble Lords who took part in the debate my sincere appreciation of their interest and their thoughtful approaches to the deep-seated and emotional matters concerning Irish affairs. Many of us in the House realise how difficult it is to speak without emotion on the sensitive, deep-seated affairs of Northern Ireland that have existed for such a long time, and bearing that in mind the remarks of noble Lords are most heartily appreciated.

I feel that I can say that the debate in this House was conducted in a spirit that was above any doctrinaire or narrow, partisan attitude. I consider that we in this House have tried to look at the future and to provide a basis for practical co-operation in Northern Ireland, so that the elected representatives of the people can produce suitable leadership towards achieving peace, wellbeing and general prosperity. Effective solutions to the problems of Northern Ireland might hurt some people in their personal political stances, but I believe that given goodwill, the measures in the Bill can succeed in providing stepping-stones to the way ahead. Without good will, neither this Bill, nor indeed any other proposed democratic measures, stand a chance. We on these Benches give the Bill our earnest support.

My Lords, this Northern Ireland Bill has been unamended in your Lordships' House. We on these Benches welcomed it at Second Reading, and I now repeat that we wish it, and the people of Northern Ireland, well. Explanatory memoranda have suggested little certainty, but much possibility, as the noble Earl has today so graphically reminded us—for which I, too, thank him. I quote the memoranda:

"A new Northern Ireland Assembly, and a Northern Ireland administration answerable to it can resume legislative and executive functions".

Further,

"There can be either partial or full devolution",

just as,

"The system of government will be based on the Constitution Act of 1973. There can be periodic plebiscites at intervals of not less than 10 years".

In short, it is possible for an Assembly to move to full devolution through partial devolution, but, even while it does not have any legislative function, we agree that it will still have an important function at that stage. I quote again:

"From its inception it will have scrutinising, deliberative and consultative functions in the transferred ' field … and a committee corresponding to each Northern Ireland department".

Furthermore, and very importantly, the Secretary of State will be able to refer matters to the Assembly and consult it about matters concerning the Province.

This is a challenge to the people of Northern Ireland to take greater responsibilities for their own affairs. The world will look on with interest to see their response. I sincerely hope that the Northern Ireland Act of 1982 will prove a landmark of real progress in the history of Ulster.

My Lords, I should like, very briefly, to welcome the Bill. No matter how difficult, attempts must be made to see that the government of Northern Ireland proceeds from its present impasse, and I believe that the Bill certainly offers the best opportunity in this decade for a substantial measure of progress to take place. I should like, very briefly, to make only two observations, which I think are fair. Neither Stormont, nor local government in Northern Ireland, has in fact quite deserved the terms in which it has been painted. When I was an academic I had occasion to look closely at one major aspect of government and local government in Northern Ireland. I found that the level and quality of provision in Northern Ireland was certainly as good as, if not better than, anything else in the Kingdom—and was certainly better than that which prevailed in the Republic at that time—for both the Protestant community and the nationalists. It would be unfortunate if that particular poor reputation were automatically tied around the neck of representative institutions in the North. Personally I hope that, as the new representative institutions come into being, they will be able to achieve as high a standard of provision as prevailed before direct rule was undertaken.

Of course, in one respect Stormont and local government did fail—there was an obvious failure in the lack of participation of the nationalist community—but it would be wrong that the blame for that should attach only to the unionists. I do not want to lengthen my speech by dealing with history, but we have to remember that for many years the nationalists boycotted the Northern institutions; and, moreover, that the war itself, in which, for better or for worse, the South decided to be neutral, was a major and traumatic event in the history of the relationships between the two parts of Ireland.

Secondly—this is my last point—I should like to express my sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Brookeborough has said. I absolutely agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench that Ministers must adopt a policy of neutrality in any electoral process or any referendum process in the North between the nationalists and the unionists, because it is vital that elections in this country should be seen to be fairly conducted. But members of the Government are members of the United Kingdom Government, and as such it must necessarily be a fundamental point that they believe that the United Kingdom Government is the preferred form of government for all parts of the United Kingdom. After all, nobody would serve in a Republican Cabinet in Dublin who thought that independence in the South was fundamentally a mistake—and there are a number of people in the South who do think that.

I think members of the United Kingdom Government ought to speak up in favour of the United Kingdom; and, in all fairness to my noble friend on the Front Bench and to my right honourable friend in another place, they have spoken up in support of the United Kingdom. Indeed, my noble friend did so again this afternoon. But I think it is vital for Members of Parliament here and in another place to support my noble friend and my right honourable friend in the belief that the United Kingdom can and does offer the kind of Government which will suit both communities in the North.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am afraid I missed his earlier remarks and it may be that he answered my point, but surely he is not saying that it is the duty of every member of the Government here to rule out the idea of a United Ireland as an ideal aspiration?

Yes, my Lords, I think I would, if you served in a Conservative Cabinet. Of course, I am not quite sure what the present state of the noble Lord's party may be, or which sector he belongs to. He may well be a militant. I have just reviewed one of his books, in which he speaks in favourable terms of all Members of your Lordships' House, and particularly all sections of the Labour Party. But I quite honestly feel that if you serve in a Conservative and Unionist Cabinet, and as a Minister of State or Under-Secretary in a Conservative and Unionist Cabinet, it would be two-faced to say that you did not support the nation of the United Kingdom. That does not mean to say that you have always to serve in the United Kingdom Government—it is a free option; you can refuse to accept the Prime Minister's invitation, I assume—but, personally, I would take that to be a matter of conscience.

My Lords, it seems to me that we have had Second Reading speeches at every stage of this Bill. I will spare the House and say that on these Benches we are solidly behind the Government in their attempt to take a step forward, and we hope the passing of this Bill will help them.

My Lords, I should like to give the Bill my best wishes. I hope that the Assembly will not turn into a talking shop, because as far as I see it the representatives will be surely more like delegates, and we do not want the British Government to become their Aunt Sally. I hope that will not happen, and I wish this Bill well. I would also hope that when the Assembly is formed they will themselves set up a committee to keep in close touch with Dublin regarding trade, economics, tourism and all these other questions, because I am sure that that will help to bring about good relations with the South. That is all I have to say, but I wish it well.

My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend on the way he has conducted this Bill; and, while I do not agree that it is in fact a good thing, like everybody else, and not for the first time, I shall do my very best to see that it works as well as it possibly can.

My Lords, may I say how regrettable it is that there have been such short intervals between the later stages of the Bill. As almost invariably happens, this has led to problems. I have in mind, for example, the excellent amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, in Committee, notably his first amendment, which would have empowered the Assembly, subject to the most stringent safeguards, to assume local government powers. It became quite clear after reading Tuesday's Hansard last night—and few of us had the time to do so before yesterday evening—that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, the official Opposition, the SDP and the Liberals all misunderstood that amendment. They all seemed to be under the impression that it would impose local government powers upon the Assembly, and upon a possibly unwilling Province. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, himself used the word "impose" at col. 769.

The reality was that there could be no question of imposing anything. The amendment was entirely permissive. There could have been no question of local government powers being granted unless, first of all, there appeared to be massive support for such proposals among the Northern Ireland electorate or their representatives; and, secondly, unless each House of Parliament acknowledged that support and agreed to the granting of such powers. If we had had the normal intervals between stages, we might have been able to meet in private the noble Lords who were suspicious of the amendment and convince them of its harmlessness and its considerable potential merit, and things might be different today. However, there is nothing more that can be done about this now.

It would be churlish for those of us who have not cared for this Bill either in principle or in detail to do anything now other than to wish it well and hope that our fears turn out to be unfounded. I should like to congratulate the noble Earl on the adept and elegant way in which he has piloted this Bill through the House. I should like to congratulate him, too, on his frankness and honesty. When, for certainly the third or fourth time this month, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, asked the noble Earl and the Government to come out more warmly and more enthusiastically in favour of the Union, the noble Earl finally replied in col. 798 (I paraphrase him) that it would be perfectly all right for an individual to speak warmly and enthusiastically for the Union and it would be quite all right for a political party in a non-governmental capacity to do so, but it would be quite improper for a British Government to do so since they believe in self-determination and to come out in favour of the Union would be taking sides and would be loading the question. As I said, I have to congratulate the noble Earl on his candour.

What is now evident is that, so far as one small area of the United Kingdom is concerned, with its well-established and internationally recognised boundaries, the British Government of today feel that it is improper to express the normal partisan pride and support that Governments normally do express about their own territory. Instead, they regard themselves as an impartial referee holding the ring without fear or favour between two contending factions. This clarifies a great deal of what has hitherto been obscure, and I am grateful to the noble Earl.

My Lords, perhaps I should make a very brief intervention, which I trust will not be a Second Reading speech. I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lord Gowrie for replying so fully and carefully, and with such patience, to the many points made. I must apologise to him that I was unavoidably called out of the Chamber when he was speaking a few moments ago, and I hope I have not missed anything of very great importance. I can only hope that if this experiment is not seen to be producing worthwhile results over a reasonable period, and if the Assembly is seen to be degenerating into a sort of talking shop, then the Government are not going to fool around and the Assembly will be wound up decisively and not allowed to drag on. Obviously, political uncertainty and hesitation in Northern Ireland will hinder the fight against terrorism and hinder investment. I have a feeling that those who directly rule in Northern Ireland could yet be surprised by the reaction of those who are directly ruled. By this I mean that when the full implications of future devolution are made clear—and I know that this is not a devolution Bill but devolution is going to come if the Act progresses—and the risks involved are more generally realised, it might be that direct rule, which, I think, everybody agrees is everybody's second choice at the moment, might become everybody's first choice. That might turn out to include the majority of both sections of the community. It will need to be a rather more positive form of direct rule, eventually, with more local democracy, more imagination and more commitment on the part of the Government.

As my noble friend is aware, I am an unrepentant unionist and opposed to devolution in principle because of the danger involved of implementing fragmentary devolution for just one part of what, in legislative terms, is a unitary state. I have tried to point out the dangers in the Second Reading debate and in Committee as did my honourable friends in another place. No matter how different is Northern Ireland from Scotland and Wales—and it is different—any new Parliament formed will not be similar to the old Stormont. We are in a different ball game now. Constitutional questions, which became known as the West Lothian conundrum, which were so highlighted during the debates on Scottish and Welsh devolution have been quite brushed aside in these debates on the proposed eventual devolution for Northern Ireland.

My noble friend has not answered the West Lothian problem. I do not ask him to do so now because there is no answer to it. But the trouble will come when we have a Government at Westminster whose existence hangs upon the 17 votes of the Northern Ireland Members. Then it will be argued, "Why should they decide the fate of our Government when they have an effective Parliament and Government of their own?" It is this which will undermine the effectiveness of the Northern Ireland Members in another place and will be detrimental to the unity of the Kingdom. I do not think that the potential dangers to the unity of the Kingdom is appreciated as a result of this Bill's proposals. I only trust that the people of Ulster will have the good sense to see that, and I predict that the views of the few today may well become the views of the many tomorrow.

My Lords, it gives me pleasure to be able to end our proceedings on this Bill by actually agreeing with my noble friend Lord Ellen-borough. Of course, there will be no devolution unless the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives want it. If they do want it, then I would suggest to my noble friend that there would be little danger in giving it to them. Direct rule goes on because the people of Northern Ireland are a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Until they determine otherwise or the United Kingdom Parliament accepts their ruling in determining otherwise, I see no reason why they should not have an input of a serious constitutional kind into the affairs of the United Kingdom as a whole. That seems to me to answer the problems of the West Lothian question.

Could I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that at Second Reading I gave notice that there would be a long pause between Second Reading and Committee stage and inevitably that would mean that the Report and Third Reading stage would have to be concertina-ed because we are dealing with enabling legislation, including the enabling legislation for elections to proceed. Finally, can I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who praised with faint damns (I think) what he thought my somewhat dubious candour, that I, like all other Ministers in successive British Governments, am bound by the Constitutional Act 1973 and the remarks that I made should be seen in the light of the fact that that Act is still very much on the statute book.

I am grateful to the House for having given these proposals, modest and enabling as they are, a fair wind. Our main concern now must be a hope that the people of Northern Ireland find them suitable, are able to take them up, and able to try to make the slow, painful and awful frustrating movement towards greater peace and stability. Upon that we are all united in wishing them well. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st June be approved.

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl the Minister for the helpful and detailed way in which he has presented this order. I also wish to say that I am appreciative of the improved arrangements and of the format used in the printed presentation of the appropriation measures and in the Estimates of services. In relation to the Province and to United Kingdom regional matters, I believe it is fair to say that in this order we are dealing with a massive amount of public expenditure. We on these Benches fully accept that this vast amount of public expenditure makes it all the more important that every effort is made to ensure that moneys are used in a carefully selected programme of social and economic development that will clearly stand up to defined objectives and to agreed cost-effective criteria.

In previous debates on Northern Ireland appropriation orders and Estimates of services, I have mentioned a general concern, and my own reservations, about the effective role of this House in influencing Government decisions. Along with other noble Lords, I am anxious to ensure that every effective measure is taken to support productive and competitive trade and industry in the Province. While I fully realise that the appropriation orders cover much more than support for trade and industry, it appears to me that we are debating decisions in retrospect. Indeed, there is a danger that the debates on the orders may become somewhat of a ritual.

In this connection, noble Lords will have noted that these appropriation measures had a wide-ranging debate last Friday, 16th July, in another place, in which many Northern Ireland elected Members and other Members participated. It was a debate ranging over some five hours or more. I do not wish to repeat views which have already been expressed in detail during the debate on the Northern Ireland Bill. The noble Earl has already mentioned some matters in this connection. But I am convinced that, in an elected Northern Ireland Assembly, matters concerning the priorities and the effectiveness of public expenditure should be enabled to be debated in the formative and decision-making stages by the elected departmental committees and by the Assembly. Surely that is the best and most democratic way for them to be handled.

Before I leave these general appropriation matters, I wish to mention one further point; that is, the "historical" approach, which seems to me to colour and influence almost every vote in the Estimates. Valuable as the new format is in the Estimates publication—and I should like to say here that I welcome the notes and the manner in which they are now being presented to us—providing figures for the two previous years and indicating expenditure trends, it appears to me that this could compound "historical" expenditure approaches and attitudes. I am sure that Northern Ireland departments and Ministers carefully scrutinise expenditure and estimates before submitting them to the Department of Finance and Personnel and to the Public Expenditure Survey. At the same time, I would feel happier if I could see some evidence of attempts to define objectives, in terms of jobs and of a social development work programme.

I should like to ask the Minister whether there are, at present, any studies being undertaken at departmental and sectional levels to evaluate "input" measures and "output" achievements, and to measure performance in wider terms than mere public expenditure. When I say "mere", I do not want, in any way, to belittle the tremendous amounts that we are considering in these appropriation measures.

There are a few matters which I wish to put before the Minister, arising from the order, and I think it would be helpful if I dealt with the items as they occur in the estimates for services as published. I think that if I deal with them seriatim they will be easier to cope with. I want to make it clear that I do not propose to argue the points, because time will not permit that. So if I put them as succinctly as possible, I hope the Minister will accept that it is for reasons of brevity.

Clause 1.1 vote 85—the agriculture section—mentions the sum of £150 of grant aid to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. We all know that the increased mechanisation and electrical equipment in agriculture has resulted in a steep increase in accidents on farms, as well as in forestry and fishing, for which the department is responsible. I understand that the figures for accidents are not available, but there were 16 fatalities on Northern Ireland farms in 1981, which is a sharp rise in the number of accidental deaths on farms. I should like to ask the Minister whether he would make suitable inquiries into the action taken on farms, as well as in forestry and fishing, to prevent accidents. What information is available regarding injuries and reportable accidents in agriculture, forestry and fishing? I realise that the Northern Ireland Health and Safety at Work Agency has a role here, provides an excellent programme and is committed to dealing with accidents arising in this area. However, it is important that this should be dealt with in its proper context.

Turning to Class II.3.C.3, I welcome the Minister's remarks concerning energy and note with interest the proposal concerning gas supplies from the Republic. As it has been so long in the pipeline, many of us will watch what happens about gas supplies from the Republic to Northern Ireland. The matter I wish to raise comes under the heading of C.3: the energy interest grant scheme. I draw attention to a scheme which was introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in March 1981. At that time I drew attention to the fact that I believed the scheme was not appropriate to Northern Ireland. In March 1982, after about six months of operating the scheme, we were pleased to note that major changes were made to the scheme. It provided for the minimum threshold to be reduced to £15,000 and for the coal firing scheme to be renewed.

I am concerned about the fact that not only in Northern Ireland but in industry generally the lead time for surveying what is required to bring about the necessary changes to make plants more effective is about 12 months. This scheme is due to expire in March 1983. It is considered that there is insufficient time, particularly in Northern Ireland, for American and other international bodies to contact their head offices and obtain the necessary approval. May I ask the Minister to use his good offices concerning an extension of the time limit so that if additional requests are made relating to the measures contained in the scheme, the necessary capital sum will be provided.

I have noted with surprise that in an excellent publication by the Parliamentary Liaison Group for Alternative Energy Strategies—their bulletin published in June 1982—there is the heading "Japan buys Belfast wave device". I understand that Fuji Electric of Japan has purchased from Queen's University the right to build under licence five 100 kilowatt wave generators. Queen's University have pioneered and developed this project. I believe there is considerable concern that Northern Ireland Ministers and United Kingdom Government departments do not appear to take the necessary interest in it. This project appears to be feasible—it is one which could be readily and easily adapted for use—and there is concern that this project should be going to Japan to be exploited. I would ask the Minister to look into that particular aspect of energy.

Turning to Class II.4—tourism—I welcome the Minister's remarks concerning tourism developments. We all applaud the new and imaginative efforts of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to promote and encourage the industry in the Province. The employment of 10,000 people is a very important aspect of the tourist trade in Northern Ireland. I need hardly add that we readily appreciate the difficulties they face in countering and surmounting the competition and the difficulties facing the tourist industry. In 1980, the income from 710,000 visitors to Northern Ireland was £54 million. In 1981, there were 590,000 visitors and the income fell to £47 million. This shows that tourism in Northern Ireland needs a boost if it is to succeed in rescuing its position in the industry.

The 1982–83 provision of £6·1 million is 25 per cent. higher than the 1980–81 provision. This is being made available to local authorities in Northern Ireland. There is a switch in the direct use of the funds from the Department of Commerce to local authorities. Concern has been expressed about this and I want to ask the Minister to look into the question of the local authorities, the tourist board and the new Department of Economic Development working to an agreed programme of development and to keep in mind the distinct tourist attractions and requirements of Northern Ireland. By all means let local authorities decide what is required, but it is considered that it is necessary to work to an agreed programme. This appears to be absent.

The Minister mentioned manpower matters. In Class II.5 I see that the expenditure under C.4—grants to employers for apprenticeship training—has risen from £2,766,000 to £4,197,000, a rise of over £l½ million for the year, while industrial training board grants have decreased by some £800,000. May I ask the Minister to give the reason for the steep increase in funds and grants to employers while there has been a decrease in the funds made available to the industrial training boards? May I also ask the Minister whether any evaluation has been made of the cost effectiveness of the end result? I welcome the fact that the Minister mentioned that management development has got to be looked at and that new approaches are being made by the Government. However, in this year's Estimates there is a decrease in the amounts voted for management development.

Under Class IV.1.A.1—new construction and improvement—there has been a considerable decrease from £37 million in 1980–81 to £24 million. On 17th May 1982 Mr. David Mitchell, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, mentioned in a public statement the need for the improvement of the Newry to Dundalk Road. He said that there was a need to expedite the request to the European Commission for support for a joint survey. May I ask the Minister to indicate whether there has been any movement concerning the apparent deadlock over this matter? Can he state when the road improvements in this area are likely to be undertaken or completed?

Noble Lords will welcome the Minister's statement concerning housing accommodation. We join in his congratulations to the Housing Executive and to the building societies who have contributed considerably to the improvements in this area. We welcome his approach to the EEC efforts concerning the £16 million. It is very suitable that the Housing Executive has been assisted to go forward with their programme in this way.

However, under this section dealing with rent assessment committees, from representations made to me and from general inquiries I have made, I have every reason to doubt the effectiveness of the 1978 Northern Ireland rent order. There are two aspects which I should like to ask the noble Earl the Minister kindly to consider. The first concerns the inaccessability of rent assessment committees. Apparently, the facilities and procedures for persons requiring the help of such committees are not readily accessible in particular parts of the Province, especially in the Belfast area.

A further point to which I want to draw the Minister's attention concerns the hook, Rents, Repairs and Despair by Paddy Hillyard, which is a study of the private rented sector in Northern Ireland. I understand that there are about 9,000 private furnished and unfurnished tenancies outside the rent order. The security of tenure and control over rents in this category are, I know, very difficult matters. May I ask the noble Earl the Minister to look into the situation regarding this aspect of privately rented furnished and unfurnished accommodation? It would appear that there are allegations of Rachmanism raising its ugly head in this area in Northern Ireland.

Finally, may I say that, while I realise that the noble Earl the Minister has been bludgeoned, if that is the proper way to put it, by a number of questions, I hope that he has found my questions as constructive as I could possibly make them. In making a massive amount of expenditure available in Northern Ireland, which certainly we all welcome, we seek to have it used in the most effective way in pursuit of building up the economy and ensuring the wellbeing of people in Northern Ireland. With that, I certainly give support to the order before us.

My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for his full introduction of this order. If I may, I will leave detailed general analysis and questioning to other speakers as they wish.

Despite some time spent in an accountant's office, I find the explanatory memoranda confusing and that the figures do not altogether seem to tally; I understand that these memoranda are to be discontinued anyway. However, the noble Earl, will doubtless convince the House that they do tally, and I wish him well. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, invited me to join him in raising certain problems confronting Lagan College, which may perhaps be taken under Class VIII, Vote 1, "Expenditure by the Department of Education on Schools", under what the Minister calls a "process of rationalisation". The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, will be speaking shortly, with his greater personal involvement and knowledge, as will the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I will therefore only seek briefly to pave the way for their fuller accounts.

For many years, people in Northern Ireland and outside the Province have argued that community relations would be greatly improved if there was a network of integrated schools where Catholics and Protestants were on an equal footing, alongside the existing systems which, de facto, seek to serve the needs of either the Catholic community or of the Protestant. What we ask is that the Government will "come clean" and say frankly that they support this viewpoint, and that they will do more than the bare minimum that they have to do to encourage such brave examples as Lagan College, which seeks to fill just that gap described. I understand that the college will not of necessity be supported financially until it achieves an enrolment of 300 and qualifies for grant-aided status. The college prospers modestly, and I submit that many will bitterly regret it if it founders now because of lack of official support for an exciting and brave experiment in what may be a difficult interim stage.

I would like here to raise just two points which I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, will expand upon later. First, it seems that there is no place for Lagan College within the grant-aided system of Northern Ireland as it is at present, because it is, and intends to remain, an all-ability school, Secondly, I understand that college parents feel extremely bitter about their inability to secure the normal payment of school travel expenses to send their children to the only available integrated post-primary school.

I am sure that an expression of willingness by the Minister and his Secretary of State to seek the necessary changes in the law to help on these and many other points would confirm and give substance to their expression of support for integrated education by consent in Northern Ireland. I wholeheartedly support the view that the college's independent status should not be used as a reason for refusing to authorise discretionary grant.

My Lords, I have always found the Northern Ireland appropriation accounts to account for the least satisfactory period of the year in this House. I have presented them for two years and we only had good discussions when noble Lords raised points which did not really arise from the figures. Exactly the same thing is happening today. We have had, with the greatest respect, a very clear but not passionately exciting explanation of what the figures are—and a very clear but not epoch-making discussion on them from the other side. Now we are going to have a discussion of some interest about Lagan College and I am looking forward to hearing it.

It seems to me that we ought to be able to have interesting discussions about Northern Ireland without going through the farce, if I may call it that, of presenting an extremely elaborate set of figures to people who are not really qualified to deal with them. These are the sort of figures on which the Treasury as a whole, with all its expertise, must spend some time. But from my point of view, just looking at them leaves me exactly where I was. I would like to ask the noble Earl two questions. He has taken great trouble to make the figures less dry-as-dust than they were, but has not altogether succeeded so far as I am concerned.

There are two things I should like to know about these figures which do not seem to come out of them. The first question is, what has been the United Kingdom's expenditure on the Province in real terms over the past five years or 10 years, or any period you like? I should like to have that figure in every time. Are we spending more in real terms or are we spending less? Secondly, as the biggest problem in Northern Ireland is that of unemployment, how much of the Class 4 or Class 5 group is unemployment pay? This is always a very relevant point. How much is supplementary benefit in relation to unemployment?—because that is money which we might like to see deployed in some other way.

I cannot wait to hear the discussion about Lagan College because it will be very much more interesting than anything I have to say.

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, sits down, he mentioned a "farce" and I mentioned a "ritual", and I put it to the House that if we are to treat with respect the publications which come before us as far as expenditure is concerned, what is our duty and responsibility? If it is not about expenditure and quantifying terms of performance, then we ought not to have the figures presented to us.

My Lords, I would like to start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Gowrie on his presentation. The figures show that we have a very energetic Secretary of State and Ministers. We have always been extremely lucky and our present Secretary of State, in the way he cares and talks about unemployment, is one of the best that we could possibly have. The whole of Northern Ireland is conscious that he worries terribly about unemployment and all the problems in Northern Ireland right across the board. All his Ministers work extremely hard and we are very grateful to them for that.

I would like to support the noble Lords, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and Lord Blease, for their comments about the ritual—although I do not quite see how it can be avoided, because there is only one way in which people can raise a lot of subjects right across the board. I find in dealing with these appropriations that the amount of expenditure is so vast that it is almost impossible to pinpoint anything that is interesting enough to develop here. Therefore, I probably am one of the people the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was blaming most for running off at a tangent on other occasions. However, I do not apologise for it because I think quite often it is worth while doing.

I would like to pinpoint one matter particularly, and then go on to two other points. The first is the question of the presentation by Her Majesty's Government for the extension of the less-favoured areas. This was supposed to have been done in a matter of weeks after November last. It still has not been presented, and I simply cannot understand why it has not. Within that area, I wonder whether any study has been done on the effective employment of, let us say, £5,000, being the cost of one unemployed man, when it is spent in Government grants into less favoured areas. How much does it generate, because it is my belief, living on the edge of a less favoured area, that every £5,000 there generates far more employment and prosperity than money spent pretty well anywhere else. Therefore, I would ask the Government to see to it that, when the area of less favoured areas is extended throughout the United Kingdom, they persuade the Treasury—that they do know, first of all, in order to persuade the Treasury—exactly how much employment and prosperity is generated by the expenditure of that particular £5,000.

The next item is a hoary old chestnut of mine which is the intensive pig, poultry and dairy industry. Twelve months ago, or perhaps 18 months ago, the pig and poultry industry and the dairy industry in Northern Ireland were in a very bad way, and the differential in feedingstuff price was enormous. It was so great that our business was running down at an alarming rate. Year after year the Government have pulled all the levers possible and have saved that industry. We were on a fairly even keel because in April this year the input of feedingstuff price was on a parity with this country. No sooner do we get on to that than the EEC decides to restrict importation of manioc, puts duties on bran and tries to restrict importation of maize gluten. The result has been that the differential is going to go right out again. I know our Government will not let 5,000 people become unemployed without taking action, but this is plughole action; we are always putting the cork in.

Could the Government not give some continuity of confidence to the industry. For one thing, every ton of maize or barley exported and subsidised by the EEC to third countries costs £31 to subsidise and get out. It would only require a matter of £4 million in all to pay £15 a ton to bring the price of home grown cereals to Ulster, to make sure that our industry can compete on the same price. This is a vital thing. It is a question of 5,000 unemployed unless something is done, and 5,000 unemployed costs £25 million; the multiplication is so clear. I am sure the Government will make sure that our industry can survive, but there really is an enormous need for confidence, because every year a different device has had to be used in order to make that possible. I know from another sphere, your Lordships' sub-committee, that the people in Brussels are only too willing to help if it can be done in any way that is within the terms. If it was in France they would do it without the terms and argue about it afterwards, but we have to do it within the terms.

I want to touch on a generality, and I will do it very quickly. It is something which will give my noble friend an opportunity of proving his warmth towards the constitution of Northern Ireland and the unity of the United Kingdom. I have met on so many occasions the criticism of Northern Ireland that it is a pensioner of the United Kingdom, that we are such a burden that we are not worth having. The reason that we are that burden is very simple. It lies in the way that our accounts are presented. We are the only part of the United Kingdom that is separately costed. Not only are we separately costed, but even when they make comparisons they do not make comparisons like with like. Take, for example, Bournemouth/Eastbourne. They have far more pensioners than we do. Parts of England have far more subsidies, for instance, on transport, far more than we do. Yet we go on being presented with the fact that we are pensioners.

I would draw your Lordships' attention to the Northern Ireland Economic Council's Report on Expenditure Comparisons Between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. They bring the figure down to 2 per cent. I believe that the Northern Ireland figure should not be presented in isolation, because it is abrasive to many thinking people and will have a very material effect on the future of the Union. On page 3 it says:

"Furthermore, the exclusion of Government lending to nationalised industries in Great Britain is not consistent with the inclusion to similar industries in Northern Ireland."

That inconsistency goes through those accounts again and again, and it is totally misleading, and in my view is to the detriment of the Union.

I will finish by saying that so many of our policies are national policies, decided nationally. The level of family allowances is decided nationally. The level of unemployment, which is our main bugbear—it is the Government of the day that decides the rate of interest which provides the unemployment which provides the problem. We then get that separately accounted and get separately blamed for it. Lastly, I note that there is a terrible inconsistency in our income. When I made my maiden speech—and everybody can remember their maiden speech with terror—I had to make mine on a subject I really knew nothing about and it was on the offshore oil industry. I had already had something to do with it in the Ministry of Commerce. I found that Northern Ireland had bartered, sold its share of offshore oil at, I cannot remember what percentage, and that this was to be credited to our account. I understand that at the present moment the figure might be £150 million. Certainly, it was £150 million last year which we have not been credited for, and next year it could be up to £400 million. That makes a very big hole in the deficit which is being attributed to us.

So if my noble friend will show his friendship and his warmth towards the unity of the United Kingdom will he undertake to mention to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that something should be done with the presentation of these accounts, and possibly another area of comparable size and comparable problems should be put against it, so that it can be seen that Northern Ireland is in fact a normal part of the United Kingdom from that point of view. I therefore approve of the appropriate order.

My Lords, I too, would like to thank the Minister very much for his presentation and also for sending notes to help us to understand this appropriation order. We have recently debated the affairs of Northern Ireland rather more than usual, and most recently, of course, we have given a welcome, most of us, to the forward-looking political initiative of the Government. However, in contrast, there has also been during this week the tragic evidence that Northern Ireland's destructive forces are continuing to persist.

On this occasion I feel that we should add to the usual ritual of examining specific figures in this appropriation order by trying to also establish whether, on the one hand, the spending priorities are in line with the political progress being made, while at the same time providing a counterweight to the forces of violence which continue to undermine the fabric of life in Northern Ireland. By that I mean trying to establish whether the distribution of these funds effectively counters those cycles of poverty and deprivation which are the allies of the terrorist, and whether they relate to the fundamental social and economic problems peculier to Northern Ireland, such as Northen Ireland's bad housing; Northern Ireland's high number of unemployed; and Northern Ireland's disaffected young people. My contention is that in Northern Irleand the three threads of politics, economics and security are all woven into one skein and if the figures before us do not reflect this interdependence, then our priorities and our balance are wrong.

So starting from that premise, let me make a few comments about this appropriation order and put a few general questions to the Minister. First, under Class I Vote 2 let me support the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and ask the Minister indeed, when the Government are to make an application to the EEC for an extension to the less-favoured areas in Northern Ireland. I am sure we all know that this application is now very, very long overdue in that not only was the survey completed some time ago, but also that it is being very favourably anticipated by the Commission authorities. At present, as the Minister knows, less than half of Northern Ireland as a whole is treated as a less-favoured area, and considering how well the Republic has done out of extension, and if something is to be done for agriculture in Northern Ireland, there would seem no better place to start than on this particular issue.

Under Class V, Vote 1, let me bring out the vexed question of Community assistance to Northern Ireland in the field of housing. I have a different interpretation of this from that which the Minister has given. Will the Minister justify or explain why, out of the £64 million exclusively identified for housing in Northern Ireland under the special measures for the United Kingdom Kingdom during the course of this year, not a penny has yet arrived in Belfast? None of these funds, which as we all know are desperately needed to alleviate Belfast's chronic housing situation, has been provided as additional money to Northern Ireland's housing executive. So while this amount remains locked in the United Kingdom's Exchequer, would the Minister not agree that it is hardly surprising that the German Government are blocking the transfer of the further special housing grant of £16 million from the EEC, although it has been rightly guaranteed by the Secretary of State as additional to his own spending?

I have informed myself a little about this predicament. There is no doubt that the German Government's sympathy lies with Belfast's housing and, indeed, with Belfast's economic plight in general. Encouragement is being given to German industry to invest in Northern Ireland, but on the question of allowing the passage of the £16 million of European funds to Belfast's housing, the German Government feel that as Germany, in common with Britain, is a major contributor to the European Budget, they would first like to see the British Government liberate some of the original subsidy earmarked for Belfast's housing.

Let me make the following points about education under Class VIII. First, there can be no doubt of the supremely important place that education holds in the life of Northern Ireland. On the one hand, Northern Irish parents are among the most supportive of their children's education in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, a stable school life is even more crucial to the children of Northern Ireland, exposed as they are to extra tensions, than to children in the rest of the United Kingdom.

So bearing that in mind, it would seem wrong that education is losing out rather badly in its share of Government spending in Northern Ireland. Proof of this was revealed in a recent Parliamentary Answer by Mr. Nicholas Scott who stated that education and related services in Northern Ireland took only 15.3 per cent. of the total—this is the lowest proportion since the early 1970s.

Some intitial effects of these gradual cuts in education were felt in the provision of school meals and milk and, indeed, in 1981 a survey of health visitors expressed a fear that children in the 13 to 15 age range were at risk from a poor diet resulting from the cutback in subsidy for school meals. But despite such reservations, the cost of school meals has recently been increased yet again with a subsequent fall-off in the take-up of these meals. This, in turn, has brought on a reduction in the number of working hours of school meal attendants and many of these attendants, of course, are women, and women, as we know, already represent a very high proportion of Northern Ireland's jobless.

Furthermore, on another point, the statistics reflecting female unemployment will be greatly obscured by the proposal that from October there will be no obligation for married women without work to register as unemployed. Thus it is evident that indirectly both the extent of child poverty and the extent of unemployment have been aggravated by cuts in the education budget.

On another level, it is evident that education spending cuts have adversely affected the work of the youth service, the library service and expenditure on the building and equipment of schools. An example of how the crucially important work of the youth service has been impaired was brought to my attention the other day by an organisation in which I am involved called the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, who are engaged insupporting and financing self-help and youth employment projects. They say how worried they are about the cutback in funds for summer play schemes for young people. Both youth and social workers together with the police community relations branch have really been appalled by this totally false economy which, among other things, runs completely counter to their efforts to shield young people from the adverse influence of the paramilitaries. These summer schemes have proved extremely valuable in recent years in keeping young people usefully occupied and off the streets during those difficult summer months.

The final point that I wish to make about education is in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has said and what the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, is about to say about Lagan College. I have been very involved with Lagan College since the outset and so far as possible I have been supportive of this educational initiative. Like many others, I am convinced of the eventual aspiration that Northern Ireland's children should be educated together. Moreover, I have been encouraged by the supportive evidence that Northern Ireland's parents, from both communities, wish for the provision to be made for integrated education. I have on several occasions been in touch with the Minister responsible for education to see how Lagan College could be assisted.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has already said, the organisers of this college, which opened last year, wished from the outset for it to be a voluntary grant-aided school eventually, rather than an independent one. They accepted that this would not happen for three years while they were achieving an enrolment of 300 pupils. But they were led to believe that the Department of Education would be supportive and that requests for help during that period might well receive favourable consideration. I myself was given very much the same impression by the Minister responsible. But the point has now been reached when those hard-working and very dedicated pioneers of this scheme feel that they have received no favourable evidence whatever of any Government support. There has been nothing but a great deal of backtracking and vacillation on the part of the department. So in my view, as again the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has said, the time really has come for the Government to come out into the open and declare themselves either in favour of the principle of integrated education in Northern Ireland or to state their reasons for holding the opposite view.

The last general point that I want to make concerns the necessity to relate economic strategy regarding Northern Ireland to the present forward-looking political strategy. I would like to give one particular example of how I think this can be done. We see reflected in these figures before us a very substantial amount set aside for the purpose of attracting external investment, especially from the United States and Europe, following the establishment of the new Industrial Development Board. But in direct contrast to the setting up of a Northern Ireland Assembly and the hope that it might devolve governmental functions upon itself, there is little evidence of any encouragement to the Northern Irish people, especially those involved in industry and commerce, to undertake some modicum of responsibility in attracting investment from abroad. Although this sizeable amount to be spent on industrial development should, of course, be accountable by Ministers, I would suggest that the representation of the Province should gradually be transferred into the hands of the Northern Irish. It would seem a strange paradox to encourage political development one day, bringing in the resulting local political responsibility, while not conceding any responsibility locally to supervise inward industrial development.

So I end by saying that, much as many of us admire the efforts of the Government towards political progress in Northern Ireland, there may be some doubt in some of our minds whether this appropriation order will give the economic balance necessary to bolster that political initiative.

My Lords, I, too, should like to add to the tributes paid to the noble Earl on the Front Bench for his presentation of this order. I am grateful to the noble Duke for giving way to me because I rather wanted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, because they dealt with the subject with which I want to deal.

Following on what the noble Baroness said, I should like to emphasise to your Lordships that it is not vast sums of money that the college is looking for at the moment. Rather, it is co-operation, consistency of response and moral support of the Department of Education. We accepted—we knew right from the start—that we would not get grant-aided status until the college had established itself and shown over three years that it looked like being a permanent seat of learning, and had shown, by building up the enrolment to 300—as the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness Lady Ewart-Biggs, have said—that it was capable of making a worthwhile contribution to the education system in Northern Ireland. We realised that.

Right back at the feasibility study stage we were clearly given to understand that when those criteria were met—three years and 300 pupils—we would be given grant-aided status. There is just a sniff—a hint—in the air now that a little hit of back-peddling is going on in the Department of Education. I sincerely hope that I am wrong. If that were to be the case, it would be disastrous because—and it is cardinal to our policy—in appealing for funds from the public and from charitable trusts (and I must declare an interest in that I am president of the appeal) we have said all along that this is purely seeding finance: £500,000 to prime the pump and get us going over those first three years. So I sincerely hope that I am wrong.

I should like to quote a second example of where we would like to have seen more positive support from the Department of Education. As your Lordships may be aware, in Northern Ireland there is an Action for Community Employment Scheme, comprising bodies such as the National Trust, local councils, voluntary societies and almost any group which is prepared to employ someone on a steady full-time basis on a project or projects that are in the public interest. People are employed on the basis that they have been unemployed for a reasonable length of time, the bulk of their salary being paid from Government funds. In fact, the voluntary society to which I belong has been employing a welder for some months now and the department is paying 90 per cent. of his wages.

So on that basis the governors of Lagan College went to the Department of Manpowe Services and asked whether they would be able to employ a full-time science teacher, taking advantage of the ACE Scheme. The department was very sympathetic but, quite understandably, referred the application to the Department of Education for a recommendation. To our great disappointment, the department gave an unfavourable recommendation; so the application has been turned down. I should have thought that the department would like to have seen the queue of unemployed teachers being reduced, even if only by one.

What is even more ironic is that the department does not exactly criticise us, but it tactfully made us aware that it thought our capability for teaching the subject of science was perhaps not as strong as it ought to be. So there you are, It looks as though there is inconsistency again.

Further inconsistency seems to appear every now and again within the Department of Education itself. For instance, the community relations division of that department last autumn actually encouraged the governors to make an application for a grant in respect of school transport—as the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, mentioned—establishment costs (lighting, heating, et cetera), and the salary of one teacher, indicating to the governors that there was no reason why applications for forms of assistance of this kind should not be granted. In the event, unfortunately, the applications were not granted because, having been referred to the schools division of the Department of Education at Rathgael House, once more they were turned down on account of the fact that the college was independent.

In view of the above frustrations, a delegation of governors—with, I may say, considerable difficulty—managed to secure an interview with the honourable Member who sits in another place and who has responsibility for the Department of Education. On that occasion they got nowhere, other than to gain the impression that Mr. Nicholas Scott had been advised by his civil servants that, being an independent college, nothing could be done for it. This was, again, contrary to the impression that had been given.

Next, it became clear from inquiries made from parents that two extra classrooms would be required, and the cheapest and most flexible way of doing this was to acquire two secondhand classrooms of the mobile variety to sit outside the existing school premises. Towards the end of last autumn two suitable mobile classrooms had been found. A price was agreed, but, as a formality, the permission of the Department of Education had to be sought. A reasonable length of time was allowed to elapse and then, when nothing had been heard, a further inquiry was made of the department to see what was happening. A further period of time elapsed and eventually, seven and a half months after the permission was sought last December, a reply came saying that they were still awaiting the drawing from an architect indicating which two of several mobile classrooms at an Antrim school were being made available for transfer.

It was not the responsibliity of Lagen College to commission an architect to do that. In fact, I think that they would have been going beyond their remit in doing so. They were waiting patiently. But it seems to me to be a remarkably elaborate way of doing it, when one considers that an hour-and-half's drive takes one from Rathgael House to the school in Antrim where the classrooms are. I should have thought that any junior civil servant equipped with a piece of graph paper and pencil would have been able to take half a day and go to see where the classrooms are. Eventually, I understand that when it was made known that I might be raising the matter in your Lordships' House this afternoon, a civil servant did go off in his car and find out where the classrooms were.

So when the people of Northern Ireland are, quite properly, continually being urged to help themselves as best they can and when quite a number of people are working extremely hard to make a go of this, when you are stifled by red tape like this, you begin to wonder who is for us and who is against us.

The organisation to which I belong, which initiated Lagan College, is called "All children together". It might equally well have been called "All children and all parents together", because it is remarkable the amount of work that parents of all religious persuasions put in shoulder to shoulder, side by side. This surely is what community relations and reconciliation are all about. I could not agree more with the noble Baroness when she said that it would make it much easier for us all if we knew exactly where the Government stood on this. If they think we are wrong, let them say so and give their reasons.

I have just another quick point or two. On the subject of housing, euphemistic noises are being made about the generous grants available for voluntary housing associations. I have researched this one and have been told by the chairman that in fact there is no finance available for new housing developments on the voluntary basis. All the additional finance that has been put in is for catching up on the backlog of schemes which have had to be postponed. Again, hoping that the Ulster people will do their best to help themselves, I think this would be money extremely well spent providing employment in the construction industry and also helping to ease the housing shortage in various places.

Similarly, those of us who have tried in a modest way to provide employment in the countryside, particularly those parts of the countryside where unemployment is running at a high level, have found ourselves restricted and frustrated from time to time by planning restrictions. None of us wants to see heavy, thumping, smelly industry in rural areas generating a lot of traffic on roads which are unfit to carry it, but there are all sorts of things like the cottage industries on which the economy of Northern Ireland was built up in the 18th century that could be slotted into the small towns and villages of the countryside. Things like craft centres, which would give employment not in a big way, but obviously it is in the small way that we have to look for hope because I cannot see us getting more ICIs or Courtaulds, or employers of large numbers of the labour force.

With those remarks, I again thank the noble Earl and I apologise that I did not give him earlier notice of the points I was going to raise. I apologise too that I forgot to put on my brief, which is why I forgot to mention it before now, that I should be interested to hear what is happening about the electricity inter-connector between the North of Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

My Lords, I should like to support and endorse the tributes paid to my noble friend and indeed all Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office for their tireless efforts on behalf of the people in Northern Ireland. In fact, since the advent of direct rule we have been extremely fortunate in the talent and dedication of all administrations. In welcoming this appropriation order I should like to confine my few remarks to the votes on agricultural and industrial support. In regard to Class I on agricultural support, there are now significant signs that at last the industry is emerging from the long recession and that farmers are beginning to recoup part of their lost income during the last two years.

However, there is much concern, as already expressed in this House, and in my opinion unnecessary frustration in the continuous delay in the submission to Brussels of the United Kingdom application for an extension of the less favoured areas. It is essential that this submission is made without further delay to ensure that the extension is designated for 1983, for the less favoured area payments are due. I need hardly remind the Government that during the month of August the Commission virtually goes to sleep. Therefore, it is essential, indeed imperative, that this submission is made prior to this dormant period. In other words, made before the end of this month.

An extension of the existing scheme would be most beneficial not only to Northern Ireland agriculture but to the economy as a whole, for due to the serious de-industrialisation that has taken place over the last few years Northern Ireland is becoming more and more once again dependent on agriculture as a basic economy, since many rural towns have literally lost their industrial base and more than ever are dependent on agriculture. In fact, the health of agriculture has a ripple effect throughout the length and breadth of the rural population.

In regard to Class II, while welcoming the proposed expenditure on industrial development I believe that it is essential for the Government to determine that this expenditure, particularly in regard to attracting inward investment from abroad, is utilised in the most effective method possible. During the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Bill I attempted to emphasise the real problem of attracting mobile foreign investment to Northern Ireland, due to the outside damaging perception of instability.

I should now like to emphasise that in the opinion of many the only positive method of counteracting this damaging outside perception and the image problem is through the introduction of fiscal incentives which are, without doubt, the most effective method of attracting the limited number of mobile firms. Although the Department of Commerce offers a wide and complex—in my view, far too complex—range of incentives there is without doubt the most important ingredient missing; namely, tax incentives.

Sadly, the De Lorean project demonstrated only too clearly the pitfall of attracting new investments of high cost and high risk that are over-reliant on subsidy and are too capital intensive. Therefore, surely the Government agree that the most effective method of attracting profitable firms which are in the process of expanding is through tax incentives. I accept that the Treasury will emphasise the problems of introducing special fiscal incentives for Northern Ireland, an integral part of the United Kingdom. But I must emphasise that Northern Ireland's special problems are not only the unfortunate image problem, to which I have already referred, but also our remoteness problem, which is comparable only to the Irish Republic, which for many years has benefited from tax incentive schemes. Furthermore, from past experience of Brussels I would not anticipate any opposition from the Commission to this proposal, as Northern Ireland only requires and asks for fiscal incentive parity with the Irish Republic.

When replying to the debate on the Northern Ireland economy which took place on 7th May 1982, my noble friend Lord Elton assured me that a review of fiscal incentives was in hand. Since there has been a marked deterioration in our economy since that date, it is essential for the review to be completed without further delay and for the Government to adopt a radical approach in order to assist a drastic economic situation.

My Lords, the debate we have had is perhaps a fair indicator of why my right honourable friend and I may not be as offside as many people have accused us of being in suggesting that more debate and more scrutiny be devolved to Northern Ireland. I am grateful for the genuinely helpful tone that noble Lords have taken, even when they have been critical. My opening speech, which inevitably ran for nigh on half an hour—it was effectively a budget speech for a very wide range of departments and issues—necessarily had to truncate things a little. So as not to detain the House too long I shall have to go at a fair lick in my winding-up speech.

I will not make a winding-up speech but will simply try to answer the points which noble Lords have made. If I do not, then perhaps noble Lords will have a word with me, and if I do not satisfy them I will follow up the issues in correspondence. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, started, very properly, with issues of life and limb and industrial safety and as a Minister who used to work in the health and safety field in employment in this country I very much welcome that. I certainly regret that there has been an increase in fatalities through accidents on farms in 1981 over 1980 and the preceding three years. To reduce the number of accidents on Northern Ireland farms the following measures are used by the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland.

There is the operation of the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Northern Ireland Order. There are advisory visits to farms by farm safety inspectors. There is education in the form of talks, discussions and film shows to schools and also to farming audiences. There are safety competitions and exhibitions at shows, and there is publicity in conjunction with the Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland; and during the past year four additional farm safety inspectors have been appointed, making a total of six full-time inspectors. I do urge farmers all over that agricultural Province to be especially careful and to make 1982–83 a year in which we can reduce these sad statistics. Safety is still largely a matter of getting into the right habits, and I urge everyone to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Blease, also asked me about the development of wave energy projects. We are aware of the excellent work being carried out by Queen's University, Belfast, in the development of wave energy. While I understand that the first licensing agreements have gone to Japan, that does not exhaust the commercial possibilities, and Northern Ireland companies have shown and are continuing to show interest in industrial developments of the concept.

The noble Lord also mentioned the switch in resources from Subhead A.2 to Subhead A.5. He observed that the amount estimated for Department of Commerce grants towards the provision of tourist amenities by local authorities under Subhead A.5 was increased as compared with the outturn figure for 1981–82, while the amount provided under Subhead A.2 in respect of the direct provision of tourist amenities had decreased in comparison with previous years. Expenditure of £172,000 was made under Subhead A.2 in 1981–82. This was largely in respect of the Anersley Mansion Centre, a project undertaken directly by the Department of Commerce and financed entirely by that department at a total cost of £900,000. The sum of £50,000 under Subhead B.2 in 1982–83 is intended to cover outturn expenditure on this project. The department has no plans for further expenditure on direct works projects in 1982–83.

Grants to local authorities by the Department of Commerce at the rate of 75 per cent. of project cost is made under Subhead A.5 towards local authority expenditure in providing tourist amenities. By increasing the amount of grant available from the 1981–82 outturn figure of £305,000 to an estimated £797,000 in 1982–83 it will, I believe, be possible to encourage the provision of a much more varied range of developments over a wider area for Northern Ireland; and as one who enormously believes in the tourist potential of Northern Ireland I certainly welcome that.

The noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked me to explain the increase of £1·5 million in respect of apprentice training grants. This reflects the greater interest shown in the scheme, I am glad to say, by employers who take on additional apprentices or recruit young people who have completed their initial craft training at a Government training centre. That welcome interest is evidenced by the increase in applications from 1,734 in 1980 to 2,246 in 1981; and in the first half of 1982, 1,872 applications have been received. The noble Lord asked me whether I would explain the reduction of about £800,000 in the provision for training services and operating costs of industrial training boards. The total provision of just over £1 million is intended to cover the period up to 30th September 1982 and not the full financial year. There is, therefore, a reduction. The Government had originally decided that, as in the case of Great Britain, the funding of the operating costs of the board should be returned to industry completely in 1982–83. As the review of ITBs in Northern Ireland has not yet been completed it has been decided to support the operating costs of all boards until September and consultations with the interested sectors of industry on the future of the boards are still going on.

There was mention of the Newry-Dundalk Road by the noble Lord, Lord Blease. There have been discussions between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland on the adequacy of the existing road between Newry and Dundalk. There is a divergence of view on the matter and it has been agreed that a joint study should be undertaken on the position. Applications for grant aid to help finance the cost of such study have been made to the Economic Community and commencement of the study is dependent on the outcome of the applications.

The noble Lord, Lord Blease, turning to housing, asked about an extension of rent control to the private unfurnished rented sector. As a matter of general principle the Government are unwilling to interfere in freely entered into agreements between landlord and tenant, but I shall pass the noble Lord's comments to my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who has responsibility for housing. In the same way I have to pass his query about the coal-firing scheme to my right honourable friend the Secretary or State for Industry in this country, because he is responsible for the scheme and he will give consideration to that point.

I am not entirely clear as to what the noble Lord meant in saying the rent assessment committees were inaccessible—I believe those were the words he used. Anyone, either a tenant or a landlord, wanting to know whether he is entitled to a hearing by the rent assessment committee has only to contact the Rent Officer for Northern Ireland at Windsor House in the centre of Belfast and he or his able staff will be only too willing to advise people of their rights. I am glad to say that many people take advantage of this service. If the noble Lord has any specific complaints I should be most grateful if he would let me have details and I will ask my ministerial colleague to look into them.

The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, asked me about levels of public expenditure planned for Northern Ireland in 1982–83. The Government's expenditure plans were set out in a recent White Paper, Command 8494. The total planned expenditure in 1982–83 is £3,546 million, which is some £125 million more than was planned a year ago. The net increase takes account of Northern Ireland's share of planned increases and decreases in expenditure on comparable programmes in Great Britain, and also reflects the revision of the economic assumptions underlying our previous plans. I will write to the noble Lord with the figure of the costs of unemployment benefit in the Province.

There was considerable mention of the good work of Lagan College, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, from the Liberal Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, also dealt with this. The college has been established as an independent, not a grant-aided school and therefore is not eligible for assistance from public funds; but the college has been assured that the Government will give whatever assistance they can consistent with the college's independent status. I am sympathetic to the points raised by noble Lords on this, and I will bring the points they have made to the attention of my honourable friend Mr. Scott.

The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, had a specific criticism, which was that the application in respect of Lagan College was previously turned down by the Department of Manpower Services because the Action for Communtiy Scheme could not be used in an area where clear statutory authority rested with the department or body making the suitable provision, and in that case the department or body was the Education and Library Board. I am afraid that it is in the nature of provisions of this kind to have rules, because limitations have to be drawn. Rules are inevitably decried as being bureaucratic. Sometimes one can unplug the blockages, but I rather doubt that I would be able to in that case.

My noble friend Lord Brookeborough asked me a rather technical question about cereal substitutes and manioc; he advised me that he would not be able to be here for this final speech, so I will deal with that privately, unless other noble Lords are agog to hear the answer. I said however that I would try to answer him on a point which was raised by others, notably by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn. That was the issue of the delay in submitting the case to Brussels in respect of less favoured areas for an extension of the less favoured areas in Northern Ireland. Although the Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom Survey of Marginal Land was completed quickly, by the end of 1979, the result of the survey for the rest of the United Kingdom had to be awaited, and as my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture said in another place on the 8th of this month, there is still no Government commitment to provide additional aid to any marginal areas which may eventually be designated as less favoured.

Government expenditure on compensatory allowances and certain capital grants would qualify far a contribution from the EEC. It would have been inappropriate to consider an application on behalf of Northern Ireland before the full extent of the problem in the United Kingdom as a whole was known. The United Kingdom case is now under consideration and preparation. It will be submitted by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture as soon as possible. No special measures could be implemented before the Council of Ministers approve the application, and therefore I cannot, I am afraid, forecast when they will reach a decision.

My noble friend Lord Brookeborough—I said I would deal with this as it was of general interest—asked whether it would be possible to present the income and expenditure accounts for Northern Ireland in a less detailed form, particularly given the fact that similar detail is not available for other regions of the United Kingdom. I sympathise with my noble friend, but the fact that Northern Ireland's public financial structures were established in the context of a local parliament, and continued to be geared to the devolution of functions to a local Assembly, makes it inevitable that a separate system of accounts be kept for Northern Ireland, and generally I think Northern Ireland has recognised that they sometimes benefit from this.

It is this which enables the income and expenditure of the Province to be identified in detail, something which is not possible for the other regions of the United Kingdom. I think if it were possible, we should see that other relatively depressed regions also benefit from revenue raised in more prosperous regions. I do not think this practice casts any doubt on the future of the Union, and I must say that to my noble friend in the friendliest and, to use his term, in the warmest possible manner.

The noble Baroness asked me why one penny of the £64 million provided by the European Community in supplementary measures for housing in Northern Ireland had not been spent there. In determining public expenditure allocations, the Government take into account anticipated income from all sources, including the various means of assistance available from the EEC. Were such assistance, including the supplementary measures referred to by the noble Lady, not available, public expenditure levels could not be maintained at current levels. But the proposed special aid for housing represents additional funds—at present they stand at the considerable sum of £16 million—which would not otherwise have become available to the United Kingdom. It has been possible therefore to earmark these sums, if they are eventually agreed on—and I touched on that issue in my opening remarks—as additional to the planned public expenditure on housing in Northern Ireland. It is a matter of regret to us that agreement has not yet been reached with the member states a whole, but as I said in my opening remarks (if she will do me the kindness of reading it) we have, as it were, put our money where our mouth is and made this avaiable.

The noble Baroness then moved to the education budget and asked about the cuts in the Education and Library Boards recurrent budget in this year. Excluding the costs of the expanded youth training programme, which will be funded separately, the cash available for recurrent services, including milk and meals, is £172.9 million. This represents a reduction in real terms of about 1 per cent. on all services as compared with expenditure by the boards in the last financial year. Within this total, provision has to be made for all pay and price increases in the 1982–83 financial year and an expected increase in numbers of mandatory student awards. Thus, in effect the boards have been required to reduce provision for their main services—that is, excluding their statutory commitments—by some 2.65 per cent. in real terms, and this assumes that inflation on these services can be contained within the Government's cash limit factors. Obviously, we should all like to have more money available to us, but neither people in professions in Northern Ireland, as with their counterparts here, are always willing to restrain pay demands in order to keep up the level of service provision.

The noble Baroness, and by proxy the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, asked me our views about integrated education. Again, we welcome integrated education wherever there is a local wish for it and we shall support practical proposals put forward to this end. But we cannot force integration—or indeed little else—on those in Northern Ireland who do not want it. There is of course no statutory bar whatever to children of different religions or backgrounds being educated together.

The noble Baroness widened the debate in arguing there was insufficient local control in Northern Ireland over the attraction of inward investment. Again, I refer back to our debates on the Northern Ireland Bill. It has been in order that the Secretary of State and I and others should have something to sell in the terms of political movement in the Province, however slow or modest, that we have put our proposals forward. I shall shortly be dealing with some structural and organisational issues in connection with the promotion of inward investment on the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, and I should rather reserve my remarks for that debate, otherwise we waste time in duplication.

The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, referred to the resources available for housing associations in the Province. I cannot accept his assessment of the case. The allocations have in fact risen progressively over the years. It now stands at £24 million for 1982–83, and this represents an increase of some £3 million in out-turn over 1981–82 of £21 million. This is a significant increase and surely reflects our commitment to the voluntary housing movement. It will enable a start to be made on over 900 new or rehabilitated dwellings and will assist about 1,000 people to take the first steps on the owner-occupation ladder through equity sharing schemes operated by the Northern Ireland co-ownership housing associations. In common with other housing services, housing associations will continue to receive the highest priority among the Government's social and environmental programmes.

My noble friend the Duke of Abercorn, while generously recognising—which is no more than the case—that assistance to industry in Northern Ireland currently available is the most generous in the United Kingdom, thought that in the long run this form of deservedly highest assistance should start operating in a fiscal context rather than, to use his words, in capital grants. I must say that he does not have to convince me. I am very sympathetic to this point of view, and I hope that eventually what both my noble friend and I should like to see happen will come about.

However the Government have other practical difficulties in divorcing the fiscal schemes between the mainland and Northern Ireland—as I think my noble friend was very alive to—but we are always looking for practical suggestions for making our arrangements more effective in a way that is not damaging to the United Kingdom as a whole. In that spirit and context of sympathy, and indeed conviction—which is about as far as I can go at the moment—I welcome my noble friend's remarks, and I shall continue to use his experience and observations with which to beat my colleagues about the head. I think that I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised, but I shall look through the report of the speeches and write to any noble Lords whom I have short-changed.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved.

My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble Earl for introducing the order in the way he has, and for explaining it to your Lordships. I certainly do not intend to go into some of the details which he has given to clearly so your Lordships. I think we would welcome his initiation to the agricultural sector, and I am sure that, despite his short acquaintance with the industry, no one will doubt from the previous debates the fact that he is very much in touch with the grassroots, if I may put it that way. The noble Earl has no relief tonight, because this is his third order and he still has one more to go; but my noble friend Lord Blease, who is also so well identified with Northern Ireland affairs, has one more to go, and I am very pleased to be able to give him some relief, at any rate. I am sure that some of the points I shall make, which I shall do as briefly as possible, are points that he would have made.

As the Minister of State for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for five years myself in another place, I had the pleasure of liaising with Northern Ireland agriculture, fisheries and food industries, helped by visits which strengthened my contacts there, including visiting the Royal Ulster Show and also some of the fishing areas. The reshaping of the marketing boards, with other changes as outlined by the noble Earl, will have effect upon a wide range of people involved in production, marketing and distribution, and, of course, in consumer aspects in Northern Ireland, where 9 per cent. of the working population is engaged in farming—which, of course, is about three times the average percentage of those engaged in the United Kingdom—and the processing and preparation of material of course adds to this impressive percentage.

The order introduces greater compatibility, as the Minister has said, with the EEC, with the organisation of Northern Ireland commodities matching to some extent the legislation which is already in use in Great Britain. I think we must ensure, nevertheless, that such changes are not less advantageous when applied to the Province. Part II of the order, as the Minister has said, concerns co-operation, education and research. These are very important aspects in agriculture. They are essential to the viability of small farmers in particular, and co-operative ventures need more encouragement and resources, accepted as they are by more small farmers and in a wider range of commodities.

The Agricultural Marketing Boards in Brtitain and, indeed, in Northern Ireland have made a substantial contribution to the high productivity of agriculture and food production in the United Kingdom, where the output per employee is indeed higher than in almost any other industry. There is, as we know, considerable criticism of the CAP, and we would not wish our agricultural industry to be influenced unduly by those member states which are nowhere near as productive as our own. Although few doubts have been expressed about the possible effects of the order, Northern Ireland will want the Minister to resist any trends which may hinder Northern Ireland producers in their commendable production records.

The Milk Marketing Boards, which, of course, are regarded by everyone with great admiration in the United Kingdom, exist because, in particular, of the considerable confidence expressed by the dairy industry, including farmers, distributors and most of all, of course, the consumers. The doorstep delivery is so well an accepted part of our lives, and one hopes that this will continue despite any other changes which may emanate from the CAP.

But it seems incredible that the United Kingdom, including the Northern Ireland dairy industry, which is far more efficient and productive than that in many other EEC states, should have been threatened by the Brussels Commission. I think that indicates the need for vigilance. But, of course, efficiency in marketing depends on having produce to market, so other trends need attention. Two of them have been mentioned tonight by noble Lords. Reference has been made to the problem of manioc by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, mentioned the problem of the less favoured areas—two matters of real concern to Northern Ireland agriculture at the moment. The less favoured areas (or the LFAs, as they are called) are important because Northern Ireland has something like 45,000 agricultural holdings which are, on an average, about 21 hectares (which, as your Lordships will know, is about 50 acres) as compared with an average of 50 hectares (or 125 acres) in the United Kingdom as a whole. So these are important factors with the LFAs. The marketing boards must of course heed these facts, and indeed the Government do.

Holdings of the size of those in Northern Ireland can survive only by efficiency and hard work, and they need all the support they can get. The review of the LFAs, to which the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, made reference, brings also eligibility for aid, but this is not helpful if the overall cash available brings no greater help to individual areas and producers. It seems to me that, taking the present sum of money from the Community and from Her Majesty's Government which is applicable to the less favoured areas, if those areas are extended then, unless the amount of money allocated is increased, this can have its effect upon those already receiving some benefit. Farmers in Northern Ireland must get more encouragement to utilise the more difficult areas—improving the quality of soil and making it worthwhile to produce in very difficult circumstances where normally crops and other means of production would not be viable.

My noble friend Lord Blease and I have been very much aware of the concern of farmers as expressed by the Ulster Farmers' Union general secretary, Mr. Gilliland, who expressed what he called "urgent concern" at the delay in the submission to Brussels of the United Kingdom application for an extension of the LFAs. I think I gathered from the Minister's reply in the last debate that the application has not yet been made. He may clarify this if I am wrong. But I understood that the Minister of Agriculture said in March that the application would be made within weeks, and in reply to a Private Notice Question in another place on 13th May, he said he expected to make the submission very shortly. It seems that the submission still has to be made. I think the importance of this point is that it is essential to make the submission in time to ensure the extension is designated before the 1983 LFA payments are made. If the application goes in too late, then, of course, the farmers concerned may suffer.

The other concern of the Ulster Farmers' Union is about the supply of cereal substitutes, especially manioc, as we have been told today. The Minister may recall that your Lordships' House had a debate on this matter following a report of the Select Committee on the European Communities as far back as last year. This is a matter which is still worrying farmers in various parts of the Community. In the debate, in which I took part, I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, also took part and expressed his concern about manioc. We know that Northern Ireland producers are worried about the high cost of imported feed. Manioc, as the noble Earl will know, is a very high energy product from tropical countries—Thailand, Indonesia and China—and I believe that, coming into the Community, it is subject to a levy. The Community has a dilemma here because of the need to put the interests of those who use the cereal substitutes such as manioc which are less costly and the interests of the livestock users, who benefit from it, against the interests of the producers of cereals.

In the report to your Lordships' House from the Select Committee on the European Communities, the committee said that they believe that the Commission's proposals and the support given thus far by the Council for negotiating restrictions on imports of manioc to be wrong. This is a factor which still has to be resolved. There is hope by the Ulster Farmers' Union that its members will be benefiting from any regulation of the quota when, of course, there should be an assurance that Northern Ireland will get its fair share. Small farms, small fields and heavy rainfall make it essential that there is a competitive livestock industry as there are very few alternative arable ventures. It should be possible to resolve the apparent conflict between the cereal producers and the livestock industry and the cereal substitutes such as manioc and gluten help us and the LDCs.

May I put to the Minister, finally, three questions of which I have given notice to his officials, so that I hope he will be able to reply. First, will he ensure that in reshaping the marketing boards and in the re-organising of their functions, the changes do not add to the problems of the agricultural and horticultural industry, ensuring that these changes are based on the methods of the most efficient areas of the Community? We all know that the United Kingdom—including Northern Ireland—is among the most efficient producers in the EEC; and we want to level up the standards and not to level down.

Secondly, can the Minister report on the state of play with regard to the extension of the application of the LFA? He has already made some comment on this and I should like to know what the prospects are of making the application and of the certainty that benefit will be available in the 1983 period; and also, of course, whether the Government will be making more money available for the LFAs because, as I say to extend the areas with the same amount of money will not benefit those who are already receiving help. Finally, with regard to cereal substitute, manioc, will the Government ensure that if there is an EEC quota system to operate with manioc et cetera that Northern Ireland gets its fair share of the benefit having regard to its dependence on livestock.

With 80 per cent. of the land area of the Province being in agricultural use and a good percentage of its working population employed in it, the agricultural industry needs all the support which the EEC and Her Majesty's Government can give to ensure its prosperity. Finally, if the noble Earl can deal with defence with the same skill with which he has dealt with the agricultural aspect this afternoon, then I am sure we have nothing to fear.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, for his kind remarks and assure him that I am sure that my honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture there will welcome the noble Lord back to any agricultural shows that are going in the Province. We hope to see him at them once more.

He asked me whether the Government would ensure that in reshaping the marketing boards, the changes do not add to the problems of Northern Ireland agriculture. I think these proposals were designed to ensure as little disruption as possible between the old and new arrangements. That, certainly, is the overriding desire of the Ulster Farmers' Union and the various marketing boards. The Part II changes are not all directly as a result of European Community requirements. I agree that we must be vigilant about bringing everything in line with the Community; but they do exist to put the Northern Ireland Milk Board on the same footing as milk boards over here, which is a rather different point. There will be continued consultations on all matters concerning implementation of the legislation and Ulster farmers are not notoriously reticent when they think the Government are not serving their interests well. The framing of schemes will be largely for the producers themselves.

I am in a slight quandary in that the other questions that the noble Lord asked me are appropriate to the previous order, as they are not dealing with marketing board issues. I gave part of the answer on manioc to my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. I skipped the rest of it because he was not here. As a matter of courtesy to the noble Lord who has been so kind, I will give the rest of the answer but, in fact, it is not pertinent to this order. I should be grateful if he would correlate what I have to say with my answer to my noble friend on the previous debate.

Government expenditure on compensatory allowances—we are now on the less favoured area points—and certain capital grants would qualify for a contribution from the Community. It is our judgment that it would be inappropriate to consider an application for Northern Ireland by itself before the Northern Ireland less favoured area issue was correlated with the issue in the context of the United Kingdom as a whole. My right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture is engaged in that work at the moment. I do not think, therefore, that we can take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom in this issue, any more than in any other at present. I hope, therefore, that he will appreciate that I cannot give him as full an answer as I should like.

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I mention the relevance of the two matters of manioc and the less favoured areas which I raised. Unless one has the basis for prosperous agriculture one has very little to market. The two points I raised are ones of current concern in Northern Ireland. With regard to the less favoured areas, I appreciate that Northern Ireland's application or the application to Northern Ireland will be part of the application of the United Kingdom generally. But there is a special need for Northern Ireland because of the very much smaller areas concerned and the areas which would benefit from that charge. With regard to manioc, I appreciate that the Minister will write to me and I shall be in touch with those who have been in correspondence with me on the matter. With those comments, I thank the noble Earl for his reply.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, a draft of which was laid before the House on 17th June, be approved.

This order establishes, and furnishes with a comprehensive code of powers, the new Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland. It is the third and last of the orders implementing the outcome of the studies, commissioned early last year, by the then Secretary of State, aimed at ensuring for the future the best and most efficient pattern of government and administration in Northern Ireland. Your Lordships have already approved a measure setting up the Department of Finance and Personnel, and a second establishing the Department of Economic Development, under whose aegis this Industrial Development Board will be constituted.

The encouragement of industrial development is widely regarded both within and outside Northern Ireland as being crucial to the Province's economic future. And I could use the words "inward investment" almost interchangeably with the phrase "industrial development" in this context. The proposals embodied in the order have been the subject of extensive discussion in Northern Ireland itself and more recently in the Northern Ireland Committee in another place. The order is a complicated document, and its meaning will be amplified in parts by guidelines issued to the board under the authority of Ministers. Drafts of the guidelines have been circulated to interested organisations and persons and made available at the Printed Paper Office.

The new unified organisation will take the place of the Northern Ireland Development Agency, and those parts of the Department of Commerce concerned with the industrial development. I think there has been agreement that the setting up of a unified organisation is an important advance. Anomalous though its exclusion may seem in principle, however, there are good reasons for not taking in the third body in the industrial development field, that is, the Local Enterprise Development Unit. That agency has had a record of success in providing specialist services to businesses employing fewer than 50 people, and the borderline between it and other institutions has not proved problematic. The importance of close cooperation between the IDB and what is known in Northern Ireland as LEDU is, of course, well recognised.

The IDB will comprise a board, set up under Article3, and an executive, a part of the Department of Economic Development, set up under Article 4. The Government concluded, after exhaustive consideration, that the new organisation had to be one for which Ministers were directly accountable. Industrial development decisions in Northern Ireland, to a far greater extent than those elsewhere in the United Kingdom, are at times profoundly influenced by social considerations. They often involve very large sums of money, and the total industrial development budget is very substantial indeed. Constitutionally, these then are decisions whose makers Parliament, or an Assembly, should be able to call to account. It is for this reason that the executive is part of the Department of Economic Development and the chief executive will be accountable for the DED votes covering the IDB's expenditure. This is also the reason why the boards' formal powers comprise the giving of advice and maintenance of oversight set out in Article 5(1).

In proferring its advice the board will be able to reflect the comprehensive array of powers to encourage and assist industry available to the executive. These include the provision of selective financial assistance, the power to take equity and the ability to make available a range of other grants under Part III of the order. In addition the executive will maintain a stock of industrial sites and advance factories; be able to offer trade support and marketing advice and promote Northern Ireland as an industrial location on a worldwide basis. For the present, the affairs of Harland and Wolff, and Short Brothers, will not fall within the IDB's ambit; its work will be demanding enough without adding it to the complexities of those matters.

However, we entirely recognise the advantages that a distinct, tightly-knit, agency, under expert direction, has in the indusrtial development field. Without sacrificing ministerial responsibility, we believe that these advantages can be realised in the IDB. So the guidelines that I referred to earlier set out that Ministers, though in receipt of the information which they need to account to Parliament for the IDB's activities, will generally respect the board's judgment in decisions where the predominant considerations are commercial; unless Ministers intervene, indeed, the board's advice will be for action by the executive as a matter of course. There will, of course, be areas of active ministerial involvement. One of these will be making decisions of the sort I have referred to, where social considerations are particularly significant; the board will be able to make recommendations in this field, but the decision, properly, will lie with Ministers.

Another is sanctioning very large expenditures—ones so large that consent from elsewhere within the Government is needed. The guidelines will set a generous degree of freedom in this connection: where job-creating employment is concerned, the IDB will be able to give companies selective financial assistance of up to £3 million without consent from the Department of Finance and Personnel; where job-maintenance is involved the limit will be £1,500,000. On top of that, it will be able to take equity holdings of £2 million; provide advances factories and help with training grants.

Ministers must always retain a right to intervene; but within these limits the view of the IDB board will generally be accepted. The board and executive will operate as one, and indeed I note that they are already being referred to in Northern Ireland as "the IDB" without any distinction being drawn. The organisation will have its own headquarters, away from the Department of Economic Development, its own style, and its own working methods. Its staff will be from a wide range of backgrounds: some from existing institutions; some on secondment from industry and commerce; some on short-term contracts.

They will be under the direction of a chief executive. I think your Lordships will have been delighted to learn of the appointment to this exceptionally important post of Mr. Saxon Tate, who was previously vice-chairman of Tate and Lyle. From his time there, and his previous posts, Mr. Tate brings to the job a whole array of talents and experience that will enormously benefit the IDB. He will be working with a board, under the chairmanship of Sir Desmond Lorimer, that will bring to bear acute commercial judgment over the whole sphere of the IDB's activities. Most of the board's appointees will be from Northern Ireland: bankers, accountants, industrialists, trade unionists, and so on. We hope also to secure one or two prominent businessmen from Great Britain.

As to the rest of the order, Article 6 relates to reports and accounts, and in particular includes the further safeguard for the board's position that if its advice is net taken about a particular case, it can require a statement of the reasons and publish it. The remainder of the order represents consolidation, with some amendments, of the powers that have previously been available to the Department of Commerce and the Northern Ireland Development Agency. In Part III, Article 7 will enable it to make grants, loans and investments for the purpose of creating, maintaining or safeguarding employment. Article 8 will enable it to establish, carry on and develop industrial undertakings. Article 9 enhances the existing powers of assisting research and development, and marketing, and Article 10 renews the authority for providing sites and factories for business, with an amendment to permit private sector involvement. Part IV of the order largely recapitulates existing provisions on the Standard Capital Grants Scheme, and Part V of the order re-enacts those on the Industrial Enterprise Fund, a useful source of finance for small projects.

My Lords, that is the order in broad outline. It is a complex and technical measure in some respects but its aims are simple: to improve the inward investment and internal development of industry and commerce in Northern Ireland. This is a very important task which, given propitious circumstances, can make a substantial impact on the lives of the people of the Province, and I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.

My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl the Minister for explaining the order, I wish to add that I note that the order had a very favourable reception when it was debated in another place, and we from these Benches wish to give it every reasonable support. It has been a full and busy day for Northern Ireland affairs in the House and I propose to be brief, but I should like at the same time to indicate that my brevity in no way reflects the great importance with which this particular measure is being viewed in Northern Ireland.

The provision in the order proposes considerable organisational changes in Government services and support for industry. There is no doubt that the Industrial Development Board, together with the new Northern Ireland Department for Economic Development, has a formidable task ahead. Not only is there the awful problem of chronic unemployment but there are the difficulties of attracting new industrial investment and improving Northern Ireland's competitive position.

The guidelines issued in connection with the operation of the Industrial Development Board contain a number of definitions. The definitions concerning commercial judgment and commercial viability appear to many to be rather narrow. Some would prefer a broader concept of economic justifiable activity to be reflected in the decisions of the Industrial Development Board.

While the guidelines appear to be tidy when written up, in my view in practice the reconciliation and coordination of the various interests, roles and functions in the new arrangements will require the exercise of great skill and tact by those who are responsible for leadership and accountability in the new organisational structures.

Finally, I should like to mention the present membership of the Industrial Development Board. It has been my pleasure and privilege over the years to have been closely involved in Northern Ireland industrial affairs with most of the persons already appointed as members of the new Industrial Development Board, including the chairman, Sir Desmond Lorimer, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, who spoke in an earlier debate. I have the greatest respect for the skill, knowledge, expertise and commitment to Northern Ireland that I know all members of the board will bring to bear on its role and functions. I feel sure that the executive and the Minister will be kept on their toes by a board of this calibre. With these few remarks, I welcome the order and wish the measures and all those directly concerned every success.

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th June be approved.

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for explaining these regulations. I was glad to hear that in fact they include measures for the protection of the United Kingdom film-making industry and to hear from the noble Lord about the proposed new arrangements. I think one's fear is that one of the effects of the new arrangements could be that the amount of levy which can be paid could be more thinly spread, and of course is no indication that the amount of levy income might in fact be larger in the future. One is aware that over a considerable period of years falling audiences in the cinemas have reduced in real terms the value of the levy collected, despite increases in the amount of levy collected from time to time, as a result of inflation. I wonder whether the noble Lord is satisfied that the income received from the levy is enough for the purposes which he has outlined.

My Lords, I should like also to thank the Minister for explaining the regulations. It is, of course, an extremely worthy aim, if rather long overdue, to stem the abuse of Eady money and the laundering of dubious cash-flow through film enterprises. To a certain extent, it is rather sad to think that it is locking the stable door after the horse has gone. The Eady money is diminishing; the coming year's projection, I believe, is that it will be less than £6 million; and the NFFC will be getting less than £1,500,000, which is half what is needed for one modest feature film.

The record of the NFFC at the moment is a very worthy one and I am not saying anything against it. At the moment "Gregory's Girl", one of the NFFC films, is doing extremely well in New York and there are other indications that the judgment and the administration of the NFFC has been good. Nevertheless, we are reaching a stage in the British film industry where we are dealing with rock bottom and "bottoming-out" procedures rather than in any way encountering a situation in which we can find hope and try to inject money which will really help.

The fact is that we have missed the bus. This is particularly sad considering what a great reputation our film industry has had in the past. France, Germany and Italy have all done better recently, and one of the reasons for that is because they have serious state support. One cannot expect more than that from this particular Government, who are ideologically opposed to it; and it is only fair to say that under no Government has there been sufficient support given to a film industry which could have been, and to an extent was in the past, one of our glorious glories in the artistic field and at the same time a great benefit to us financially.

Of course, that has been one of the troubles. One of the basic problems with the whole of the film industry has been this division between the artistic side, dealt with to a certain extent by the Ministry for the Arts, and the commercial side, dealt with by the Board of Trade. This has been a very great pity.

I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, would agree with me on this point, but it seems to me that an industry like this, which is divided between two Ministries, must suffer as a result. The area to which I should have thought this should go is the area which concentrates on the artistic side, because there it will be considered to be an important venture, whereas in the Board of Trade it is another industry like many others. I mean no disrespect to the present Minister, to any past Ministers or, indeed, to the board as a whole, when I say that there are a great many of these ventures and it is quite natural that films, as such, do not get the attention which they necessarily deserve. There should indeed be a shift of responsibility for the whole of the film industry.

There is only one question which I should like to ask. I will study what the noble Lord the Minister said about the television arrangements, but it seems to me that, with the state reached in the film industry, we are no longer in a situation where we should be going along the old conventional paths. The future for any film industry in Britain is certainly in a diversified field. It is to do not just with cinematograph films as such; it is to do with the intelligent use of the television industry; it is to do with video; it is to do with satellites, it is to do with all the coming inventions, and inventions which have already arrived, which can have a considerable amount to do with providing the area in which films operate.

It is that that we want to do something about and I should have thought that the limitations on the television film, particularly the limitations which mean that a film cannot have been shown as a television film in excerpts of more than five minutes, or whatever it may be, in order to benefit from the Eady levy, are probably the wrong approach. I know the reason why they were introduced. They were introduced in order to narrow the bounds—and this needed to be done for some time—and not to spread the money too far. But I wonder whether we have now reached a stage which has gone rather beyond that, and whether we should be looking again at the whole of the industry in a rather more forward-looking way. I should very much appreciate a reply on that point, but I welcome the regulations. It is merely rather a pity that they were not introduced earlier.

My Lords, I should also like to join in the general welcome which has been given to these regulations, and I join with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in feeling that it is rather sad that they represent a redistribution of a declining sum. As he said, this is particularly sad at a time when the British film is beginning to recover—and many people would say that it has already recovered—the artistic reputation which it enjoyed in the past. At the moment, the industry is receiving considerable acclaim in various parts of the world, and one of our leading writers and actors, Colin Welland, announced in Hollywood when he received his Oscar for "Chariots of Fire" that the "Brits" are coming—a terrible word which I hope we shall never hear used in your Lordships' House.

But I wonder whether the "Brits" are coming. A couple of swallows do not make a summer, and I see nothing in these regulations which will make that summer come much more quickly. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, the trouble with the British film industry is that the money has never been recirculated fast enough within the industry, and there has never been enough Government input to give the necessary impetus to the industry to get off the ground. On the other hand, it can be said that the decline in the British cinema industry, which we hope has now reached rock bottom so that it can only go upwards, is to some extent a reflection of the excellence of the British television industry in that, on the whole, people tend to stay at home and look at what they can see on the "box" rather than go out to the cinema. In other words the programme at the local cinema has to be especially good before people will leave the "box" to go to see it. Now that the industry is producing specially good films, I hope that there will be more inducement for people to go to the cinema, and that when, on another occasion, we discuss these matters, we shall be discussing them on a rising market, as well as on a rising artistic level.

The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked what I thought about the question of the governmental distribution of responsibility in these matters. It has always been my view, and it was so when I myself was a Minister, that one of the greatest absurdities that we have in Government—and no Government have put it right—is the ridiculous distribution of responsibility in the whole field of entertainment, art and sport, where we have about five Ministries dealing with little aspects of the matter and none of them able to deal with it properly.

When I was a Minister, I suggested that films should be transferred to the Ministry for the Arts. However, this was thought to be empire building. I thought that the Board of Trade, as it then was, would be only too happy to get rid of films and regard their departure with some relief. I was entirely mistaken. This was regarded as pinching a piece of the empire. The notion that any Ministry or department is willingly ready to cede a part of its responsibility is one of which I was quite quickly disabused. It would have to be a matter of prime ministerial decision, and I hope that, with that firmness which we understand she displays in every respect, on this occasion Mrs. Thatcher might be persuaded to exercise it beneficently, and to act in a manner which will not only be beneficial financially, but will also do a great deal of good in other ways as well—which it would not be appropriate for me to go into this evening.

Before I sit down, I would add that it would not be sufficient merely to bring the film industry into the Ministry for the Arts. It would also be desirable—indeed, essential—to take responsibility for television away from its present home which is, of all departments, the Home Office. Believe it or not, that department is responsible for television! With one or two other additions, one could make a really viable department which would justify a Cabinet Minister. This is the basis upon which the whole film entertainment and sport in this country—because that would have to come away from Environment, too—could be united.

I am tempted to be out of order by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. But I must resist that and return to the regulations, with one question before I sit down. It is stated that the regulations—and, certainly, this is always the case—were framed after consultation with the Cinematograph Films Council. I wonder whether the noble Lord can say if the consultation was entirely affirmative, as I hope it was, and if it was unanimous. One can consult with people, and after the consultation is over one may do what they advise one to do, or one may do something entirely opposite. We wonder whether the Minister could reassure us that, in this case, the regulations follow the advice which was tendered to him by the Films Council? That would be useful information for the House to have. That said, with the qualifications which I have made, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the regulations.

My Lords, according to the explanatory note, the aim of the regulation is to widen the basis upon which EEC film-makers may share in the distribution of levy collected from film exhibitors for eligible films. Members of the public are already beginning to be satiated with lumpen films. People are beginning not to look at television or go to the theatre or to the cinema. There is a great deal of unemployment among theatre, stage and film artistes. May I ask the noble Lord whether these regulations are likely to increase the opportunities of employment for British artistes? We seem to be using Americans, Australians, and artistes from all over the world while many of our own people are not getting the chance in our own films that they should. I do not wish to develop that theme because we have had a good discussion. I welcome the main theme of the Minister's statement.

My Lords, I am grateful for the favourable reception which these regulations have received. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, is entirely right in saying that the effect of the regulations is to spread the levy perhaps more thinly, although in practice we think that the effect will not be very significant.

With the decline in cinema attendances, the major factor is that the levy itself in real terms is falling. This underlines the fact that these regulations are of very narrow compass. They deal with only two points. First, they bring our rules into line with the EEC requirements. This is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. Infringement proceedings were threatened against the United Kingdom. We think that the effect of these changes will be to stave off those infringement proceedings. But the films do have to comply with all of the same requirements as apply to films which would have qualified before the change in the regulations was made. It is simply a question that we are carrying through into the distribution of this levy the same general principles of freedom of movement of goods and services which underlie the Treaty of Rome generally.

The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, asked a specific question about the consultations with the Cinematograph Films Council. Perhaps I should say to him that the main change which is made in these regulations, apart from the change to which I have just referred—to bring the regulations into line with the EEC requirements—was made at the specific request of the CFC. This was to remove the disqualification of films which at the time of registration were subject to an agreement to show on television. That came from the council. It is true that on one specific point the council was not unanimous. One does not always expect people to be unanimous on everything. But apart from that one point where there was a clear majority of the council, the council otherwise gave complete approval to the regulations.

The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, raised a very large number of points which went a very long way outside the scope of these regulations. They were interesting points, all the same—as, indeed, were those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. Perhaps I might give this one answer to both noble Lords. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State when speaking in another place on 9th July did indicate that we should be embarking upon a wide-ranging review in this field. We shall take the points that both noble Lords have made into account in the conduct of that review. Therefore, I am grateful to them for the points which they have made.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord is going to speak on this or on his next motion?

My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to make any comments, I have been told that this might be the appropriate time.

My Lords, the Merchant Shipping (Liner Conferences) Bill has had a very easy passage through your Lordships' House. It is an agreed measure and it has passed through your Lordships' House with very little acrimony. But it is a funny measure for the Government to be lending their name to. It is a measure which creates new regulations which at other times the Government could, I think, regard as restrictive regulations on competition. In the field of civil aviation one knows that the Government have done everything they can to lessen the restrictions which apply to transatlantic flights. One wonders why it is that in a measure like this new restrictions are being created. However, it has become clear during the passage of the Bill that the Government have accepted the necessity for regulations to be made. It is worth noting the Government's attitude in this particular case.

As I have said, the Bill has gone through your Lordships' House very smoothly, with very little debate. I thought there might be rather more debate this evening than in fact seems to be the case. I know that there has been some concern about bulk container trade. But the noble Lord who, I thought, was going to raise that point this evening does not seem to be in his place and is therefore not in a position to raise the matter.

This is an unique situation. The Government have accepted the outcome of negotiations which have taken place in Brussels over a period of time to get the regulations into a shape or form which will be generally acceptable to the shipping industry of this country and which will enable the restrictions which were initially expected adversely to affect the liner trade not to have so bad an effect as was originally expected.

As your Lordships will know, the effect of extending the provisions of the conference throughout the EEC and not solely to the United Kingdom has enabled the Government to come to an agreement to approve these regulations and to bring them forward in this particular Bill. As I have said, this is a unique Bill for the way in which the Government have brought it forward in this way and have moved from their position as previously outlined; for that it is very noteworthy indeed. I welcome the passage of this Bill.

My Lords, I am really interested in this, and in looking at the Rochdale Report on committees of inquiry into shipping, I would like to ask if liner trade, as mentioned on page 32 of the report, takes in the ships which provide a regular scheduled service between named ports, and are available for carriage of parcels and cargo at fixed rates, and for passengers—that comes in as well. Most liners carry cargo only and some carry both. On top of that, does the old tramp trade come under this, and the merchant trade? As somebody interested in commodity prices, although the public may not realise it, I know that shipping is of paramount importance to Britain's invisible earnings. This is the paramount point that should have been taken into account. I believe I was abroad when the debate took place, but we heard from a couple of shipping magnates who spoke knowledgeably in this Chamber from the other side of the House (from where most of the magnates come anyway) about this Bill.

As this is the Third Reading, I do not wish to introduce any new points but I sincerely hope that we will have just three or four minutes to look into this problem. When I was on the Commodity Prices Committee, which made a large report to this House, we had the shipping interests before us for cross-examination. As the Rochdale Report pointed out, we are entering an era in which shipping companies need to be competitive and to take advantage of new opportunities, and to use more sophisticated management and gear in their shipping operations, in view of changing markets.

Much of the valuable balance of trade depending on our invisible earnings is influenced by the cost of freight from the seven seas of the world. Often that cost is outside the control of any separate Government because, even if it is a nationalised shipping industry or a private shipping industry, their freights are relatively determined in the ports of call. I want to make one other point and then I will sit down. We must still remember that, despite efforts to increase our invisible earnings overseas over the past 150 years or so, much of which come through shipping—which is as important today as it was in the days of Trafalgar, despite the sophistication of modern living—much of our other earnings depend on the way in which our ships travel the seas. I suppose that to be up-to-date, having looked at "Salute to the Falklands", I must pay a tribute before I sit down to our merchant fleet, not only for its part in the Falklands but throughout history.

My Lords, it is typical of your Lordships' House that this fairly minor yet very complicated Bill should receive such thorough scrutiny from your Lordships even at this very late stage in its life; and it received very thorough scrutiny at earlier stages. We are very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Davies of Leek, for their comments this evening and for the interest which has been aroused by this Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House.

I will reply briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, that he and your Lordships' House will be aware that many of the provisions in the code concern very much the relationships between shippers and ship-owners, and we believe that, generally, these have been welcome. But the noble Lords opposite, my noble friend Lord Mottistone and indeed other noble Lords who have taken an interest in this Bill, will note that the United Kingdom voted against the code when it was first drawn up because both the Government and the British shipping industry concluded that British interests would be damaged if the code's cargo-sharing provisions were adopted without modification. Your Lordships will be aware that it was the development of the community policy on the code convention which was the key to reconciling this code with British national interests. We really do welcome and take on board the comments which have been made so kindly by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that shipping is vitally important to the invisible earnings of this country.

Subject to these qualifications we understand that accession to the code on these terms is supported by both the General Council of British Shipping and the British Shippers' Council. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, mentioned the commodity interests and they were mentioned strongly and succinctly by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I would stress that the Government will be consulting broadly and considerably, I hope, all the interests involved in this tremendous industry of ours, of shipping. Subject to that, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Town and Country Planning (Vauxhall Cross) Special Development Order 1982 [S.L. 1982 No. 769], laid before the House on 18th June 1982, be annulled.

My Lords, the Motion of the noble Baroness seeks to annul a special development order made by the Secretary of State for the Environment in respect of a planning proposal for the Vauxhall Cross site. I share a number of the anxieties which the noble Baroness has just expressed. But I am advised that this House has so far never exercised its power to annul an order subject to negative resolution, and I do not think that this is an issue on which it would be appropriate to set such a significant, new constitutional precedent.

My Lords, why not?

My Lords, I think that it is questionable and that there are doubts on the Bench opposite. Perhaps that will deal with the point. However, I feel obliged to question whether the use of the special development order procedure is justified in a case such as this. While the law does not specifically say so, there is no doubt that when conferring these exceptional powers on the Minister, Parliament had in mind problems of a very different kind from the one we are considering today. These included, in particular, the siting of major new industrial developments. The noble Baroness has quoted the example of the Windscale nuclear plant. Other purposes for which these powers were introduced included the location of new towns and the designation of national parks, all of which were of more than local importance.

Questions such as these raise wide issues of national planning policy which cannot appropriately be argued at local public inquiries. It was, therefore, thought right to give the Government the power to take the necessary decisions, subject to the approval of Parliament. The purpose of this procedure was certainly not to circumvent planning inquiries on the design of individual buildings.

Having said that, I fully recognise the difficulty of reaching a decision with regard to this particular site which has remained not derelict, but vacant, for many years and which has aroused such profound controversy. The Minister evidently felt that, rather than accept interminable delay, it was preferable, after holding a competition, to impose a solution by the exercise of his power under the special development order procedure. I am most reluctant to disagree with any decision of the present Secretary of State for the Environment, who in so many ways has shown his profound concern for the protection of our architectural and natural heritage. However, I am sure that he would agree that one of the most important safeguards against inapproptiate new development has been the procedure of the public inquiry coupled with the right of the Minister, in cases of importance, to reserve to himself the right to take a final decision after considering the recommendations of the inspector who has presided over the public inquiry and heard the views expressed by those who attended it.

Public participation in planning—PPP, as it has sometimes been called—is a precious democratic right which in many instances has prevented disastrous decisions. Perhaps the most notable example was the Government's own proposal to demolish the whole of one side of Parliament Street and to replace it with a single monster block of official offices. Such was the strength of public opposition expressed at this inquiry, in which I myself took part, that the Government not only withdrew their own proposal, but are now actively restoring the fine façade of Richmond Terrace, which it had been their intention to demolish.

The present case is complicated by the fact that the issue is one of both local and national importance. The opinion of the local inhabitants on both sides of the river should be fully considered. At the same time, any new development which affects the character of this historic area is one of national and even worldwide significance.

But the point to which I wish to draw attention is that the problem is not confined to this particular site. It embraces all new development along the banks of the Thames in the centre of London. There will undoubtedly be further planning applications for redevelopment in this area and I fear that the use of these special powers in this case may set a dangerous precedent. I cannot believe that we shall achieve a satisfactory solution by a series of piecemeal decisions taken over a period of years by a succession of Ministers who will possibly have differing views.

In my opinion—and this is a proposal which shall put to your Lordships' House—what is needed is the formulation of general guidelines governing all further development in this whole area. In a Question for Written Answer on the Order Paper I have suggested one possible method of doing this and I propose, if I may, to read the Question which explains what I have in mind. It is:

"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in order to assist developers and the different planning authorities involved, they will set up an independent London Thameside Advisory Committee, which, after consulting interested bodies and considering opinions submitted to it, will recommend broad guidelines regarding the general character, scale and functions of new development in the area bordering the Thames in central London."

As will be seen, the thought behind this proposal is that the problem of new development along the river should be considered as an indivisible whole. I recognise, of course, that much incongrous new construction of many different kinds has already been undertaken, but I cannot accept that we should throw up our hands in despair and abandon all further effort to encourage appropriate new development of high quality in this vitally important area.

I have, therefore, suggested that broad guidelines regarding the general character, scale and functions of new development in this area, should be formulated. This would undoubtedly exercise a powerful influence upon developers seeking planning permission for new construction. It would likewise be of great assistance to the inspectors at public inquiries when drawing up their recommendations.

The local planning authority or the Minister with whom the final decision rests would not, of course, be bound by these guidelines; but one can be sure that they, too—that is to say, the Minister and the local planning authorities—would give these guidelines their fullest consideration.

In short, I am saying that although I recognise that much inferior and incongruous new development has, over the years, been permitted along the banks of the Thames, we should continue to try to protect and improve the quality of the environment in this historic centre. With this object, I am suggesting that steps should be taken to formulate in general terms an overall planning strategy for the area as a whole. Although I do not expect any immediate reaction to this proposal, I hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to assure me that the Government will give this proposal serious consideration.

My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her concern over this matter and for introducing this debate. I have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys. I should like to put forward the reasons why I believe that the great majority of my colleagues here and in the other place distrust the use of the special development order procedure. In fact, this is the first time that an SDO has been used to grant planning permission in such detail on a specific site in an inner city area. We fear that the Secretary of State might feel tempted to move in on other sites of a similar nature—and this was touched on by the noble Lord—which has been the subject of controversy for some time, such as Brixton town centre.

I suggest that two reasons make the use of the SDO procedure undesirable. First, it is completely undemocratic because it overrides the views of local ratepayers by short-circuiting the legitimate planning authorities. Secondly, objections to a special development order can be brushed aside by the Secretary of State. These objections may be technical—such as those lodged by those with specialised knowledge of wind nuisance—or based on invaluable local knowledge of the area. By cutting out a public inquiry there is no forum where local objectors can raise their voices and obtain a fair hearing.

In a Written Answer on 5th November 1981 the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said:

"the procedure"—

that is, the SDO procedure—

"would encourage a wider public debate about a range of choices and solutions for a particular site that is not usually available when only one scheme is the subject of a planning application."

But this "wider public debate" is, I submit, a farce. The outcome of any public debate cannot be gauged because there is no forum for debate, and the debate, such as it is, would have no significance because the Secretary of State can override objections.

There is no evidence that local communities are better served by this short-circuiting of the legitimate planning system. The Government believe that developments of national significance should not be vulnerable to the delays of the local planning authorities. They maintain that the Secretary of State has always been able to "call in" applications, and that SDOs do not give the Secretary of State more power than he has always had.

But ordinary planning applications would always have been the subject of a public inquiry before intervention by the Secretary of State. SDOs are not subject to a public inquiry. Two questions arise from the SDO procedure, on which I shall be glad of comment by the Minister. First, who copes with the effects—increased crime, vandalism, litter, traffic congestion, et cetera—of major developments on which local authorities have had to remain silent? Local ratepayers, via local authorities, who have had no say in the matter have to foot the bill. Secondly, what happens if, in a few years' time, the developers decide to change their original plans to take account of prevailing circumstances? Do they apply to the planning authorities or does the SDO automatically cover any alterations that they may wish to make? If the former is the answer what happens if the local planning authority refuses permission for the change? Does Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 apply to special development orders?

The Government will no doubt argue that an earlier application by Arunbridge Limited for part of the area—the Effra site—was the subject of a planning inquiry. But there is no getting away from the fact that this development has not been subject to any inquiry at all to which the public had the right to protest. Futhermore, the recommendation at the end of the inspector's report on the Effra site application said:

"I recommend that planning permission be granted to this application subject to the conditions and notes to the applicants as requested by the Lambeth Borough Council and the Greater London Council, together with a further condition relating to the carrying Out of remedial measures to alleviate wind conditions in parts of the development."

Has any research been done by the developers into the effects of wind nuisance?

Let me make it clear that I accept that I am in no way professionally qualified to speak on these matters. I am just deeply concerned about what may take place. Last night, however, I spoke to two experts who prepared a feasibilities study entitled, The Abatement of Wind Nuisance in the vicinity of Tower Blocks. They tell me that it was handed over to the GLC authorities some time back but that no notice appears to have been taken of it. Perhaps I might reinforce our view that further attention needs to be paid to this problem by reference to the planning inquiry at the time of the application by Arunbridge Limited for part of this area, the Effra site. I quote—and the reference is 5.6.7—

"Wind speeds at ground level in the vicinity of tall buildings can be both troublesome and dangerous, especially to the elderly. The micro-climate conditions on public walkways is of particular importance. The applicants admit that there would be various places where the wind would be troublesome and it is possible that the remedies suggested may not be effective. While it is accepted that the GLC did not ask for wind tunnel tests, the council recommends that the results of the tests which have been undertaken should be taken into consideration before any form of high building is approved."

Can the Minister please comment when he replies?

Finally, I should like to put on record my considerable personal, subjective, distrust of the scheme proposed. I have studied photographs of models which make the scheme look devastatingly unattractive. I have been shown photographs that make it look at least tolerable. I am left with the impression—that is all that I can form at this stage—that British architects have yet to rise to the full inspiration that a unique site of this kind should demand. I am concerned that in years to come we may in part be held responsible for a project that was at best only mediocre rather than superb. I support the two previous speakers in their desire that the Government should give a lead in excellence.

My Lords, in view of the number and distinction of the speakers to follow I am going to make a very short speech in support of the Prayer. In the first place, the use of the Special Development Order procedure in this case seems to me to be totally misconceived. Originally introduced for the purpose of overriding private interests for the public good in such developments as new towns and national parks, already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, this type of order is here being invoked for the very opposite purpose; that is, to override the public good for the private interests of a developer.

Winding up in another place on 28th June on the same subject, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment acknowledged:

"the use of SDOs to grant planning permission for specific sites has been rare".

He then went on to attempt to justify it in this instance on the grounds that:

"This is a site of national significance".

That is not in doubt, but I would have drawn exactly the opposite conclusion; namely, that it is quite wrong for the Secretary of State to bulldoze a development on a site of "national interest" through Parliament by this means, short-circuiting the whole planning system and in effect replacing it by ministerial fiat.

Next, the competition. Much is made of the fact that there has been a competition and that the developer has made his choice from the top three entries selected by the judges. But the competition is purely cosmetic. In fact, such competitions are meaningless under the RIBA's present rules, in which the assessors need not be independent professionals but can be architect developers with a vested interest in work for their profession. In this case, of the three architects on the panel two fell into the latter category, and one of these was the developer's own architect.

The design that has emerged from this has been almost universally condemned in the national press and by amenity and conservation groups, and not received with a great deal of enthusiasm even in the professional press. The SDO throws us a sop by imposing certain conditions on the developer regarding the construction of such amenities as a leisure centre, a riverside walk, and a pub. But what happens if there is a financial setback and Arunbridge's bankers, or the Arab backers who, I quote from the inspector's report,

"are residents of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Oman, and who are clients of Artock Bank and Trust Limited, Nassau, Bahamas",

pull the rug out from the developer's feet? How do you withdraw permission from something that is half built, before the amenity provisions are completed, if the developer pleads the impossibility of complying with those conditions owing to a change of circumstances? This was a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton.

Another important question that has not been seriously addressed is that of the demand for office space in Greater London. The inspector acknowledged in his report on the Effra site, in 14.7, that:

"objectors have put up forceful arguments that there is already a surplus of new office space in London".

He then goes on rather feebly to say:

"They may well be right in this, but it is difficult to form a judgment without being able to compare the trends for both supply and demand".

It might be difficult for him, but the Government could do it easily enough if they took the trouble. But the Government have simply assumed that more and more people will pour into London to fill up the new monster, and those that will no doubt follow in its wake if it is allowed through your Lordships' House tonight. What is very much more likely is that the introduction of word and data processors and the computerised storage and retrieval of information will reduce office staff by something between 15 per cent. and 30 per cent.

Another argument advanced for the development is founded on the jobs it would create. The Under-Secretary of State in another place said that the offices would provide employment for 5,000 or 6,000 people with 200 jobs in the shops. Even that number, as I have already indicated, is questionable. We are much more likely to be faced with high rate-paying office space lying idle. As regards the employment effects of the construction work this is calculated at a mere 1,000 people a year over five years.

If the Government seriously want to create employment in the construction industry on any significant scale, they know quite well what they should do. As we have proposed on a number of occasions from this Bench, they should bring general stimulus to bear on the industry—on the construction industry, that is—and on public infrastructure, and they could almost immediately take 300,000 people off the dole, if they were so minded. But they are not so minded.

No, my Lords, this is not the way to go about things in the heart of the capital within a few hundred yards of the Palace of Westminster and of many of our most cherished national monuments. I do not know if Lord Wynne-Jones's Bill to designate a conservation area within a three-mile radius of Parliament is the best way, or if there is perhaps another way as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys. But we should at least be able to consider these ideas in a civilised and constructive way in the next Session of Parliament. If we pass this order we shall be depriving ourselves of that opportunity. I therefore hope that even at this late hour the Government will see fit to withdraw the order.

My Lords, my speech this evening will not be long. My intention in the main is to be strictly factual and not to apply, if any, subjective tests of the architectural merits of the proposed construction. The relevant legislation concerning special development orders is contained in Section 24 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I believe it would repay us to look at the relevant words in that section to see what they really say. I will paraphrase the relevant parts:

"The Minister shall by order in this Act referred to as a development order provide for the granting of planning permission. A development order may either itself grant planning permission for the development specified in the order or for development of any class so specified".

A development order, as your Lordships know, may be made as a general order, that is of any class so specified applicable to all land, or as a special order only to such land as may be specified, which covers the present situation. Furthermore, the Act provides that planning permission may be granted unconditionally or subject to such conditions or limitations as may be specified in the order which may require the approval of the local authority.

The development which is the subject of this order accords with the land usage for the site included in the adopted local plan for the area. Previous applications for planning permission relating to developments of a similar kind to that now permitted by this order have been discussed at length at major public inquiries. Thus the planning issues have been fully examined. This order grants full detailed planning permission for the development. The drawings are detailed and are to be found in Schedule 2 to the order. I would like first to draw the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to what the statute says in relation to development orders of this kind which have to be made by statutory instrument and may be annulled by Parliament, of which we all know; but I would add this, which I hope will help the noble Baroness:

"If they exclude or modify enactments or they vary or revoke, there is a requirement that there must be a further Resolution of approval".

I hope that that will assuage, to some extent, the doubts of the noble Baroness about architects withdrawing and constructors withdrawing and selling off something which is probably half completed. No one likes permitting that. I hope that that contribution will help the noble Baroness.

This statutory provision is no new thing. It may be said to be enshrined by statute. The Act of 1962 re-enacts Section 13 (1,4) of the 1947 Act. There is nothing particularly significant in that except that that Act derives ultimately from the provisions respecting interim development orders enacted in the Housing, Town Planning Act of 1919. That was re-enacted in the Town Planning Act of 1935, and in the 1932 Act with some elaboration. Now it is found, as we know, in Section 24 of the current legislation, the 1971 Act.

As the noble Baroness has pointed out, they have been used for granting development for new towns, for designating areas of outstanding national beauty, for permitting development at specific sites, for instance, at the Atomic Energy Establishment, and for specific developments, for instance, one which has already been mentioned, Windscale. I have been unable to find anything in the Statute that states or in any way implies that the granting of planning permission by the Secretary of State for the Environment by means of a special development order is either inappropriate or wrong in this case.

There is a common factor running through it, and it is accepted, and has been for some time, that a special development order could be applied in this way. I would submit that after your Lordships have heard what could be called the history of the Green Giant site you would agree with me that the Secretary of State's use of the special development order is most appropriate. It is not an overriding of the local authority's powers, of the rights of audience, to which my noble friend Lord Duncan-Sandys referred as PPP. It is most appropriate and it is most right that it should be used for these reasons.

Because of time I will limit my remarks to the Green Giant site and not extend them to the other site because there are parallels and I would only be repeating myself. Between 1958 and 1960 a 350 ft. tall tower with 480,000 square feet of office space was proposed. The plot ratio, for those who have a more scientific mind than I do, was 3.5 to 1. Between 1960 and 1963 a 430 ft. tall tower was rejected. Further applications were made for a 420 ft. tower. Appeals followed. The project was adjourned for negotiation. Then the site was cleared of all buildings in 1964 and it has remained in that condition to this day. The London County Council—as it then was—invited offers of development for a hotel and offices. Application was made for a 300,000 square feet office block and 100,000 square feet of hotel space. That decision was deferred because there was a reconsideraion of the Vauxhall Cross improvement scheme, and then the application lapsed. From 1965 to 1967 there was a discussion between the Greater London Council and the owner of the site, and that was followed in 1967 by the Improvements Bill. In 1969 the Lambeth Borough Council said: "We are not going to support that Bill", and produced a planning study showing a 400 feet tower on the Effra site and a 3.9 to 1 plot ratio.

The saga continued. From 1971 to 1976 there were no formal applications although many drawings were prepared, in 1971 one with a 421 foot tower and in 1972 one with a 320 foot tower. That is getting nearer the present proposals, but it is still higher really and in 1973 there was one for a 390 foot tower. In 1974, after a lot of consideration, Lambeth suddenly decided in favour of low-rise storage with a high concentration in the plot ratio of 3.85 to 1. So the merry-go-round, if such it can be called, of planning and planning and planning with no result started again on a completely different type of scheme. In 1975 the Greater London Council followed the Lambeth example, swung away from offices towards low plot ratios, and proposed something that had a plot ratio of 2.5 to 1.

In 1977 the site was bought by the present owners. The vendor had owned the site from 1960 to 1967 when, apart from the early 1960s, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, it had been a park for buses or lorries. A new plan, called perhaps not inaptly the "Waterloo Plan", was adopted. In 1978–79 there was more talk discussing future development. In 1979–80 eight applications were made and I believe we are all familiar with the more up to date ones. I will not go through the history of the Effra site save to say that it was cleared in 1953 and remains that way to this day. The proposed height of the new building, at 300 ft, is lower than any other proposal since 1958 for both these sites.

In my mind, these facts speak very clearly. The Effra site was cleared in 1953, nearly 30 years ago. The European Ferries site was cleared in 1963, nearly 20 years ago. This used to be called in planners' language a blight situation and it has been caused, with respect, by an inability to reach a decision. I would ask this rhetorical question: For how much longer does this kind of indecisiveness have to remain paramount before a Minister acts under a vehicle which he has been given by Parliament, enshrined by Statute over a long period of time? I am sure your Lordships will agree that the postwar riverside development to the north-east of the site is undistinguished and that the surroundings of the proposed site are unprepossessing as they now exist. I have purposely desisted from making any comment on the achitectural merits; that is another thing altogether and is a subjective matter which may satisfy some but may not satisfy other people's aesthetic taste.

I say that the time has now been reached when a decision must be made. I do not think that decision has been reached with undue haste—with indecent haste, if I may be permitted the liberty of putting words into what was said by noble Lords opposite—and if this Prayer is not resisted, if it succeeds, there will be a further deferment for an indefinite period of time. There is nothing, so far I as can see, to prevent a further plan then being put forward and the same procedure being followed; deferral. I would resist the Prayer at this stage for the reasons I have given.

I did not want to interrupt the noble Viscount in full flow, but may I ask him if it is not true that permission goes with the land and that, if the land is sold, then, as the permission goes with it, it is not incumbent on the new buyer to carry out any of the building or plans that have been agreed before?

My Lords, with a special development order—I understand that normally planning permission goes with the land—if there is to be any change (because it is by statutory instrument) my understanding is that that is then a whole new situation and that it really cannot be done without going through Parliament again—but I may be wrong about that.

I think the noble Viscount is, my Lords, but I will not pursue it now.

My Lords, I intervene briefly because my ancestor, the first Lord Sudeley, was chairman of the commission for the rebuilding of the Houses of Parliament, and the subject of this debate, called the Son of the Green Giant, is both within sight of the Houses of Parliament and, like the Palace of Westminster, the subject of an architectural competition. I wish to consider, first, the proximity of the Son of the Green Giant to the Palace of Westminster and why that is not to be desired owing to its height and size.

The design chosen by the commission of which my ancestor was chairman is exceptionally sensitive to its visual setting. It is not only a Gothic building but also a picturesque building. And one of the most important things about its picturesque style, with its reliance on towers, is how much it gains from being viewed at a certain distance. Any distance which can be obtained from a picturesque building can only add to its enchantment. The Vickers building, with its height, has already given enough trouble, and it is fairly clear from a photograph which appeared recently in The Times that the Son of the Green Giant would make matters worse.

So far my argument has been based on the sentiments of the aesthetes and a descendant of the chairman of the commission for the rebuilding of the Houses of Parliament. But perhaps it is easy enough to secure the argument, with a better hearing and a harder edge, by mentioning the financial implications which can be taken into account. It is possibly true to say that the higher the political level at which a decision is taken, the more financial considerations are taken into account. Perhaps the Cabinet very often does little else. There is no doubt that if the centre of London could remain protected, and buildings of the kind which are the subject of this debate would not arise, London could continue to be a draw for overseas visitors, with all the money they bring in in foreign exchange and the VAT they pay on their hotel bills. But clearly, if that is not to be the case, then London will be less of a draw for overseas visitors; and in this context it is important to remark how quickly a city can go. Athens and Newcastle are sad examples; and when a city goes, it goes irrevocably.

The second line of argument I wish to pursue is about where the public stands in the competition; and in this context it may be apt to contrast the sort of competition which occurred for the building of the Houses of Parliament with the sort of competition this one is. When the commission of which my ancestor was chairman chose the design for the Houses of Parliament, architecture was taken seriously; it was still regarded as one of the principal achievements of man. Uppermost in the minds of the commissioners was to choose a building for the Palace of Westminster which was worthy of the capital of a great empire. That was the principal reason why the commissioners were attracted by the splendour of Barry's elevations which have given pleasure and enlightenment to the public ever since.

We find here, however, that the whole basis of this competition is something quite different. It emerged from the other place, and it has emerged from this debate so far, that the winning design has been chosen by the developer. Clearly, the terms of reference for a developer are not beneficial to the public. What the developer wants is a building that costs as little as possible and something out of which he can make as much money as possible. In another place mention was made of a reference in the Standard of 17th June, and the same point has emerged in this debate, that Arunbridge Limited has not revealed the particular design which gained public support.

One is therefore driven back to asking: What form of Government have we? What credibility can they possess? Though they may be formally elected by the people, the decision in this particular instance has been taken by a centre of power in the economy. It seems in this case that the other place has neglected the interests of the public. I am very much hoping that the Upper House will represent the interests of the public and will at least make clear what is wrong with the special development order.

My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for introducing this prayer because this is a matter of great concern to all of us, and the debate so far has shown how well your Lordships can help in a case of this sort. I support the idea behind the special development order, because it is clear that what is attempted by the Government is to cut through the interminable planning delays which have arisen so often. When I was first a Crown Estate Commissioner we devoted most of one of our annual reports to this very subject and gave many examples of the difficulties we were up against in trying to get through good design or good planning. I recall, for example, Cambridge Terrace, one of the great Nash Terraces in Regents Park. We wanted there to restore a bomb site with the facade as it had been originally. It took us over 20 years to achieve that; only last year did we get permission to go ahead.

One can think of countless other examples—your Lordships know them well—and we heard the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, say for how long attempts at development have been made in respect of this particular site. In principle, therefore, I am sure that anything which succeeds in cutting through these interminable delays is good. Whether this particular form of special development order in such cases is the right method is another question, and I shall return to that shortly.

I believe in architectural competitions, and I believe in them particularly when they are under the auspices of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I perhaps ought to declare an interest (if that is the right word) in that I am an honorary Fellow of the Royal Institute, and so maybe I am slightly prejudiced. When I was with the Crown Estates we set a pattern—in fact on exactly the opposite side of the river to the site that we are now talking about. We had an architectural competition. There were three, or perhaps four, assessors. Two, if not three, of them were eminent architects. The fourth was yours truly, and I was the assessor on behalf of the patron.

In the case that we are considering today the patron is Arunbridge, and I think that where there are architectural competitions it is unreal if the patrons themselves are not able to play a part. It must be recognised that if one is a patron, and one goes in for open architectural competition, if one is not careful one will be landed with something that is simply not commercial, even though the design might be good. One has to marry the two aspects. So I do not think we should mind too much the fact that Arunbridge was associated with it. Indeed, I do not see how we can avoid such a situation if we are to have architectural competitions, which personally I believe in, and which I like to think we have pioneered.

An architectural competition gives the young architects the chance, which otherwise they might never have, to do something special. Certainly in the case of Crown Reach (which I was telling your Lordships about), we had a young architect, Nicolas Lacey, who had never before had anything to build. A curious reflection on that instance was that he was one of the last three architects involved in the present design. That is extraordinary.

Some of your Lordships have said, "Oh well, it should be for the Government to give a lead in architectural excellence". I am afraid that I cannot agree with that view, because while in principle it might be right, in practice the result is almost always disastrous. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandy's, who told us about what almost happened in Parliament Square, with that great block of a building—that was "Government excellence". Alternatively, your Lordships can look at the Hilton; and I am sure that you can think of many other, similar examples. No, my Lords, I am afraid that I do not believe that the Government are the right body to give the lead. We should leave it to the architects, leave it in some respects to the public.

Having said that in principle I appreciate what is behind the aim to cut through planning, and having supported the architectural competition, I come to the particular case in regard to which the prayer is being moved. First, I think that it was a mistake to have invoked the negative procedure, because we are in constitutional difficulty about it. Personally I am not sure that in a case such as this, which is of not epoch-making importance, in one sense, we should be too greatly afraid of going through with it, if people feel so strongly about it that it ought to go to a vote. But the procedure means that debate is limited. I think that in another place Members could speak for only an hour on this very important subject. We do not suffer from the same inhibitions, but we are told, "Oh, yes, but you mustn't vote against it; so it doesn't matter what you say". It might be possible—and perhaps it would be better—if we could have a positive rather than a negative procedure in such cases, because we want to get something which is right, and I do not think that the negative procedure is satisfactory.

I should like to mention a minor point. I think that it was a mistake—though obviously it was done with the best will in the world—to show the winning eight models to the public, invite them to say which they liked the best, and then pay no attention to their views. In our case—I am thinking of the competition which the Crown Estate run—we made our decision and then showed the public the various winning designs. Your Lordships might say that that was not a democratic procedure. But that is not what is important. The mistake is to say to the public, "Here you are", and then, when they say what they want, to reply to them "Oh no, it's none of your business". In a sense this is a detail, but in future we shall have competitions of this kind—and I am sure we ought to—and the decision must lie with the developer and the assessors. That does not mean to say that in one way or another, through the local authorities and so forth, the public should not play a very important part in what finally comes off.

In the debate in the other place Sir George Young said that if the prayer to annul succeeded, there would be no development on the site. Is that right, my Lords? Perhaps Arunbridge will not develop on the site, but though we have heard a history of 30 years of neglect, I cannot believe that somebody, at some time, will not step in. So I do not think that we should be too greatly influenced by the view that there might be no development on the site.

All of your Lordships will have read the article in today's Times, which referred to a decision that could doom London. It went on to state that if the special development order were passed, in the future no one would have the power to stop similar special development orders, nor the right to object. I think that that is wrong. It is true in this particular case, but it need not be true in the future.

So I come to my final point. Frankly, at the moment I do not know which Lobby I shall go into if there is to be a vote. I want to hear the Government's answers to many of the questions. I want to think about the matter further. I very much hope that the Secretary of State, who we all know is greatly concerned with what comes out in the way of good planning in towns and in the country, will consider what has been said in your Lordships' Chamber tonight; will consider how best he can take that into account and in the future inprove the method or procedure for special development orders, so that we do not get a feeling of frustration and an impression that, whatever we say, it does not matter at all. My Lords, it does.

My Lords, I should like to say straight away that I am glad that in introducing the subject the noble Baroness spoke of the over-building of offices in London. I am sure that this is going on, and has been going on for a generation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that we are undoubtedly moving into a period in which technology will reduce the number of clerks and secretaries—perhaps by more than the percentage that he had in mind—which will leave us with a large number of white elephant buildings in this city. The trouble is that there are great areas of London where it is very difficult for planning authorities to designate land for any purpose other than offices. I am thinking of sites which do not possess the kind of characteristics that residential land must have—such as accessibility to parks, schools, and so on. Inevitably a great deal of land is designated for offices because there is no other sensible use for it. The trouble is that land so designated at once establishes a value which means that it is very expensive to buy back, and undoubtedly the site that we are thinking about this evening comes into that category.

I also share the doubts and reservations of noble Lords on the whole use of the SDO procedure in cases of this kind. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hampton that this is a matter that we must look at with the greatest of care and with considerable scepticism. On the other hand, I am pretty sure that this particular instance deserves to be treated as a special case for the reasons which noble Lords have already mentioned. To begin with, there has been a planning brief for this site for many years. It was dealt with in the Greater London Development Plan; it was covered by the Waterloo Area District Plan; plot ratios have been settled; heights of buildings, as the noble Viscount has told us, have been infinitely tossed about; and there has been, as we all know, a public inquiry very recently which, while it did not deal with the whole site, did deal with a great many considerations relevant to a decision on this one.

There is, again, the special point about this site that there is really no local community. It is a desert hemmed in between main road, railway and river. There is no immediate local feeling, except, I have no doubt, among one or two people living on this side of the river. It is a site which for two or three decades has been seen as an ideal site, if ever there was one, for large, monumental buildings. But the main reason why I think we would be right to treat it as a special case is that it seems that a bargain has been struck which I would regard as benign and ingenious.

Developers do not like most types of architect. They prefer to use a sort of tame architect capable of giving them the greatest possible amount of floor space. Even less do developers like competitions, because, of course, in the way that competitions have hitherto been run, they have found themselves saddled, sometimes with an experienced architect, sometimes with an architect unsympathetic to their attitudes, and generally with an architect who could not be pushed around in the way that large-scale developers have been accustomed to do it.

There was, therefore, inevitably, in the case of this developer, no doubt extreme reluctance to go to a competition; and I am very glad that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, mentioned the part that the RIBA played in inventing a new style of competition, which in fact owes a good deal to his own initiative as First Crown Commissioner, which really, I think, has given the best of both worlds to the client. As noble Lords are well aware, the final choice has rested with him of three architects, all of them acceptable to the assessors. I do not think it right for noble Lords, or for people outside this House, to be contemptuous of the three assessors because one of them was, correctly, a representative of the developer, and another, a very distinguished architect who was for many years architect to the Greater London Council, at one time worked in the development company.

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount would give way for a moment, because I referred to the developers. What I was concerned about was not the distinguished assessors and that the developer was one of them, but that the final choice was made by the developer. That was the point.

Yes, my Lords; I am well aware of the noble Baroness's point there. That the final choice should be made by the people who have to do the building, provided the three architects are all equally acceptable to the assessors, seems to me to be a good solution, and one which really gives a cautious company deploying a great deal of finance the kind of assurance which makes it possible for them to use a competition. But, of course, the essence of the bargain, as noble Lords are well aware, was that in exchange for good architecture the developer would be given speed—a quick start. It was because of that, I am sure, that it became possible for the bargain to be struck.

My Lords, I have studied all three designs and I know the work of all three architects quite well. I am pretty sure that we are going to get good architecture at the end of this exercise. I do not want to bandy aesthetic judgments with other noble Lords except, perhaps, on one aspect, which seems to me to have been dealt with in this morning's paper in a way which might be misleading. This is the aspect of height and bulk. The plot ratio has gone down to 2.5 (for those who understand plot ratios), which is almost a residential density. The "300-ft. black shadow"—I quote from The Times this morning—is really not what the building is going to look like. It is, as those who have studied it will remember, deeply indented, with large open spaces between its projecting wings.

The architects inform me that the highest pinnacle of the building will be 280 ft. above the ground, which in the light of earlier projects is really not high, and is, I may say, substantially lower than the Millbank Tower. I think the article in The Times this morning must have had a misprint, because, far from being 8 ft. lower than the tower, the architects inform me that the figure should have been 80.

I am given to understand that the average height of the building will be 150 ft.—that is 15 storeys roughly—which is approximately the height of the St. Thomas' Hospital block across the river from this House. At no point will the building be as high as the building, which noble Lords may be familiar with, which you see from Westminister Bridge looking upstream, known as Market Towers, I believe—a sort of zig-zag shape which at the moment is at the far end of that vista. This building will be at all points lower than that. So I think the image that we have been given, of an oppressive, solid curtain of dark shadow stretching across the distance, is really not one that we should take too seriously.

All three of these shortlisted winning firms are, I am convinced, architects of sensibility; and I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, that there really are now architects of his generation every bit as sensitive to architecture as he is himself. The Royal Fine Art Commission, of which I was a member for many years, dealing with the three winners, had this to say:

"It is a fact that this"—

meaning the chosen winner—

"and the other two short-listed entries are so superior in quality of thought and design to any of the previous schemes for the Vauxhall Cross site seen by the Commission as to fully justify the decision"—

"the decision" being to use this procedure.

The commission was set up to give advice in difficult public matters of this kind. Its membership through the years has been chosen from people who, I think I can say, devoted their lives to trying to understand and to make judgments on visual matters of this sort. Noble Lords who know the membership of this committee must agree that it contains people who, if anyone can be trusted in matters of this sort, can be trusted. My own experience on the commission was that many past mistakes, of which we are now so well aware, occurred because people in positions of power thought that they knew better than the commission. The Hilton Hotel in Park Lane was one of the many examples of buildings rejected by the commission but, despite that, supported by the Government.

I urge noble Lords to remember the sentence that I quoted from the commission's view of the three schemes and to feel confident that when the scheme is fully developed—and, goodness knows, the architects had little time to do it—as it works out, and as the weeks go by, they will get a group of buildings, a development, which will be of extreme sensitivity and something of which London will eventually be able to feel proud.

My Lords, I have just come from the Heritage meeting and therefore my heart is with the heritage. The city of London is our living heritage and I would like to underline that word "living" because where there is a gap or possibility some people would seek to rebuild with some sort of idea of the past. Maybe they would like to have a sort of Wren building, a Wren church or some such building on a site like this. I fight hard to preserve the heritage of the past but our children must live and work in the future.

We here work in a building which I find fascinating and for which I have the greatest admiration, but, with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, there were great deliberations and, I think, arguments when it was first suggested how it should be built. Many thought that it should be a classical building. I think that we should look to the future as our ancestors have done, and therefore we should think in terms of a modern building.

There is one thing which has not been mentioned during this very interesting debate this evening. It has not been mentioned that there is a great network of roads and also a great network of railways behind this building and this site, and it is not a question of a beautiful vista. To my mind, it is a question of a screen. That is why when I looked at the plans (and I have looked at the plans and models carefully) it seemed to me that it carried out what was needed in this way: a screen against what can never be a beautiful vista. The other point was that it was not just a question of offices. I feel deeply about this.

I live in Marsham Street and late at night it is absolutely empty. Here there are now going to be people living, and not only people living but, I hope, people walking along that (as it appears to me) beautifully designed pathway with trees and, I believe, with lamps from an old design which will light the way. So it will not only be of use during the day but will, I hope, be a living place by night as well. So, my Lords, I would advocate that there could be perhaps some alterations for the better in some of the plans, but that there are a great many good things in this plan and I would advocate that we should in general accept it. I hope that some of the improvements would also be made.

My Lords, it is rather difficult to rise at the end of a debate like this where so many people have spoken so sensitively and with such care about the whole problem. I particularly agreed with a lot of what the noble Baroness, Lady Airey, has just said. I think one has to think of this matter in terms of the whole of the development which takes place on the banks of the River Thames.

I am not a Londoner; I have lived in London now for only eight years. I came here from Newcastle and originated from North Wales. So if a Welshman can be a foreigner in Britain, I am a foreigner here in London. But London has something of great significance and importance. One cannot live in London, one cannot visit London, without having some feeling for this great city. One first may resent it—I think I did when I first came to London. One then gradually acquires some humility—if a Welshman can ever be humble.

I then began to feel that I was living here in a city which existed long before I did—a city which has governed history throughout this country, throughout Europe and throughout the world. I think because of all this one cannot help feeling that one has a responsibility—we in Parliament have a responsibility—towards this city of London.

I am lucky enough at the present time to be living on the banks of the Thames immediately opposite Battersea Park. I have grown to love the River Thames. One of the things which have shocked me has been to see the massive block of buildings which have been going up on the banks of the river Thames.

The noble Viscount, Lord Esher, said that the average height of a building was—I forgot his exact figure—about two-thirds of the real height. But what do you mean by an average height? If something is built shaped as I indicate with the paper in my hands, it can blot out a view. However, if something is shaped in the way I indicate now with the paper in my hands then the average height has not changed but it does not blot out the view. It is not the average height that matters, it is the dominating blocks that matter. One really has to be careful about this use of terminology. One can easily trick people by talking about certain things like average heights. As a scientist, I learned a long time ago that there are many different meanings of the word "average" and you should be careful when you use the word "average" and define what is meant by it.

Today I was in a not very high building on the other side of the river. I had been asked by the Chemical Industries Association to be present at a seminar they were conducting, because by accident I happen to be a chemist. We were discussing all sorts of problems. I looked out across the river and I saw the Tate Gallery and I also saw a monstrous building which is at the end of Vauxhall Bridge. That building blots out a lot of the view. If one looked over to the right hand side one could see the spires of City churches, but this building blots everything out.

The real point that one has to bear in mind when considering the development on the banks of the River Thames is that the Thames is a river that winds and you can cut off the view of St. Pauls; you can cut off the view of Westminster; you can cut off many of the views by putting up a building which is too high and too close to the banks of the Thames. It makes a great deal of difference if an angle is created such as I have demonstrated. One can afford to put up a building, a high building, about a quarter of a mile away from the river. But put the same building on the banks of the River Thames and you cannot see a thing. You have blotted everything out. This was pointed out in a very important article in The Times, I think, on the 10th of this month, in which the author, Moggridge, pointed out that the views of St. Paul's could be entirely blotted out by putting a building that was too high in between. He suggested that a scheme which had already been devised years ago in order to look at the way in which you considered the elevations of buildings ought to be applied to looking at the whole development.

Of course, as always happens, someone wrote to The Times only a couple of days ago. It was Sir John Welch, who is chairman of the Planning and Communications Committee of the City of London. He pooh-poohed the whole thing and said: "We do all this already, and in fact we have been doing it since 1939". And he adds: "I can assure your readers that the corporation will give full consideration to the impact of the Liverpool Street Station and Mansion House Square development proposals on key views in carrying out its statutory obligations". Did they do that when they allowed the building to be put up in front of St. Paul's at the top of Ludgate Hill, which blots out St. Paul's? That was long after 1939; yet he says, "Leave it to us because we have nice, cosy little ways of dealing with these things".

I have become extremely distrustful and sceptical of "cosy little ways of dealing with things". These cosy little ways are always delightful methods of allowing some person with influence, with money, to get away with murder. I think the real objection that one has today against this special development order is that it gives a cosy little consent to a developer to do something which might not have been consented to if he had come forward previously and come to a proper inquiry. The noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, would say, "Ah, but I have all the facts and all the words put down in statutes which govern special development orders". But they do not govern the way in which a special development order can operate, and the fact is that if we pass this special development order we take the first step towards allowing further special development orders which can take place piecemeal all the way down the river, and the river will become a culvert and not the Thames that we know.

My Lords, I should like, if I may, to remedy an answer I gave to the noble Baroness after my speech to her question. I think we were both right. Planning permission is not personal to the applicant: it does go with the land, and the answer that I gave also applies, because it is a special development order; so that if anybody sold that land they would be tied to the conditions under which the planning permission was granted. I was afraid I had not made myself absolutely clear, and I hope that what I have just said resolves the matter.

My Lords, before I turn to the specific points, I should like to explain both the broad policy context of this special development order, and the particular series of events which have led to the use of this procedure, and thereby for asking the House to grant planning permission for development of the Vaxhaull Cross site. On the policy front, I should draw attention to three main themes. First, there is the determination of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to secure a higher quality of development on the banks of the Thames in central London. I do not think this is a case that I need to argue very hard. We have all talked about it this evening. We must all of us have been depressed by some of the drab and dreary blocks which our generation is passing on, as part of its contribution to the historical heritage displayed along the capital's river. It is our intention to make amends during the 1980s and 1990s.

Secondly, there is the concern—again, widely shared—about the length of time and the amount of expense involved in getting decisions about major sites. I shall come to this in more detail shortly, but the lion's share of this site has been empty for over two decades. Thirdly, my right honourable friend has circulated a consultation paper exploring the scope for wider use of the special development order procedure in improving the operation of the planning system. The provisions for making development orders have been an integral part of the planning system from the very beginning—either general orders applying throughout England and Wales, or special orders applicable only to specified land. I am grateful, as I am sure is the House, to my noble friend Lord Dilhorne for his exposition on this subject.

They have been used for a variety of purposes, although this is the first time that they have been used to grant planning permission for a specific scheme in such detail. We see this case as a use of one of the ideas in the consultation paper. For reasons which I will come to later, this was a particularly appropriate case for taking this course. The paper elicited a wide variety of responses, and the Government have not yet taken general decisions on the issues raised.

I turn now to the site which is the subject of this SDO—or, as it would have been described a year ago, the three sites. In the early parts of this century, the south bank at Vauxhall was used for industrial purposes. The site immediately downstream of Vauxhall Bridge now known as the "European Ferries" site or, more popularly, the Green Giant site, once contained an oil works. It has been unused for at least 25 years, and the buildings were cleared from it nearly 20 years ago. A photograph of it had the dubious distinction of being used as the cover of the Civic Trust publication entitled Urban Wasteland in 1977. The site immediately upstream is known as the Effra site, after an ancient creek whose waters entered the Thames there. Until the 1950s, it was occupied by a gasworks; it is now an open car and lorry park. Upstream of this is the Nine Elms Cold Store, a windowless rectangular block which is also redundant. Since the industrial uses disappeared, the sites have been consistently earmarked for offices or public buildings, with pedestrian access to the riverside and open space beside it.

The statutory development plans for the area, which have been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, are the Greater London Development Plan, approved by the then Secretary of State in 1976, and Lambeth Council's Waterloo District Plan, which the council adopted in 1977. The Waterloo District Plan provided a more detailed interpretation of the Greater London Development Plan. It recognised that all components of the site were suitable for office development, subject to detailed design constraints and the provision of riverside open space, residential accommodation and other facilities for the benefit of the public. As statutory documents, the Greater London Development Plan and the Waterloo District Plan have had to go through substantial consultation procedures. Lambeth Council have also provided more detailed, though non-statutory, guidance for the development of the Effra and European Ferries sites. This hardly shows a lack of local consultation.

Towards the end of 1979, my right honourable friend called-in for his own decision the planning application for the construction of what was dubbed the Green Giant on the European Ferries site. There was a public inquiry and enormous public interest. My right honourable friend accepted the proposals in so far as the uses proposed for the site were concerned, but refused the application on the grounds that the proposed building was too massive and overbearing. He emphasised the importance of the site and suggested that alternative possible forms of development should be explored, perhaps by means of architectural competition.

He also stressed the importance of securing compatibility between the development of the European Ferries site and the Effra site upstream. He was not alone in this point. It was a consistent theme of both local authority and amenity interests. Subsequently, my right honourable friend called in a planning application for development of the Effra site and, as we have already heard, another public inquiry was held in 1981.

I apologise for taking so much of the time of the House in going over rather complicated details, but I do believe it is important to explain how the use of the land was established by the relevant development plans and to point to the extensive public debate which has taken place over it. This, together with the consultation letter on possible wider use of SDOs, was the background against which, at the end of last year, Arunbridge Limited approached the department with an imaginative scheme for an architectural competition for the comprehensive development of all three sites.

Provided that a scheme of proven merit emerged from the competition, a decision to proceed by SDO offered, first, the advantage of speed—an important consideration, I suggest, when sites of this significance have lain derelict for a quarter of a century. Secondly, it enabled our officials to give guidance on the planning background to the competition brief to see that it conformed with the statutory development plan.

Third, it enabled them to see that the brief took account of the reasons for rejecting the so-called Green Giant.

The competition was organised and run on behalf of the promoters by a panel of assessors appointed by the Royal Institute of British Architects. At this stage I should like to welcome the words of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and assure him that our minds are not closed to any of the suggestions which he made. It was a "promoter choice" competition. In this, the promoter has a minority involvement in running the competition, and the final choice between a small number of schemes—in this case three—put forward by the assessors as the best. Competitions generally have the great attraction of offering choice and of allowing new ideas and talents to surface. The "promoter choice" format is designed to avoid the likelihood of the competition producing a winning scheme which the developer would find impractical or uneconomic to build. It is one of the RIBA's standard competition formats. This is perhaps an appropriate moment at which to thank the RIBA for the effort I know they have put into this competition and, more generally, for their support in encouraging the wider use of competitions.

There has been talk of this being a put-up job. That is ridiculous. Architectural competitions are deliberately organised to preserve the anonymity of the entrants so that the designs may be judged objectively. This competition was carried out scrupulously in accordance with conditions devised by the RIBA, and there can be no question of collusion. In any case, I have a categoric assurance that the architects were in no way associated with the developer before their success in the competition. Four invitations were issued to join the panel of assessors. Two were issued to distinguished independent architects nominated by the RIBA, one to the developer's architects and one to the local planning authority, Lambeth Council. Lambeth Council, unfortunately, decided not to accept this invitation.

All architects registered in the United Kingdom could enter the first stage of the competition, to draw up outline plans. No fewer than 128 chose to do so, investing very considerable effort in the process. The assessors chose a short list of eight who went on to the second stage of the competition, producing detailed designs. These were put on public display, giving the assessors the benefit of the public's views on the schemes. The assessors then chose the three schemes which they thought best on the basis of all the evidence before them, and the developer chose the one with which he wished to proceed. I should emphasise that the winners had no previous association with the developers.

Noble Lords have criticised the SDO procedure. I have already said that the powers have been in the planning system since its inception. It must also be accepted that decisions on sites of national importance will generally be taken by the Secretary of State rather than by the local authority. He has been involved in a number of applications for planning permission for development beside the Thames in London and, indeed, twice in relation to this site. The Secretary of State is, of course, ultimately answerable to Parliament. I have taken note of the suggestions of my noble friend Lord Duncan-Sandys and shall of course see that they are presented to my right honourable friend. His ideas are indeed interesting and I recognise their constructive approach, particularly about the guidelines. I shall ensure that they are carefully evaluated. I believe that our aims are the same.

The public's view on the sites in question have been explored in the preparation of the local plan and at two public inquiries. As I have said, they have had too the opportunity to comment on the 8 short-listed schemes. Normally, like the local planning authority or the Secretary of State, the public see only one option. The comments of the public were taken into account by the assessors.

There has been a good deal of debate about whether the winning scheme did or did not attract the most votes. I am not privy to the public comments, but I think this particular concern is misplaced. As I have explained, the format of the competition was a standard one designed to give the promoter a reasonable assurance of emerging with a scheme he was prepared to build, while seeing that a good range of alternatives were explored, and the choice was made from those selected by a panel in which independent judges were in the majority. It would, I submit, be wrong in this context, as well as impractical as a general principle, to expect to force a developer to build a scheme chosen by public vote at an exhibition. Although I am sure the assessors did their best to ensure that the schemes were presented on a fair and equal basis, there is no way in which all of the very many people who visited the exhibition could be expected to have weighed up all the complex factors involved in the choice. I visited the exhibition myself, and I hasten to add that I did not vote, but I should have found the choice a difficult one between several worthy schemes—in particular, four of them.

May I emphasise that I am not making these remarks in a spirit of professional elitism—I do not for one moment suggest that judgement of competitions should be confined to professional architects. In the competitions that the PSA run, for instance, we include laymen among the panel of assessors. I note the remarks of my noble friend Lord Sudeley, and he may like to know that the Government's thinking there is so open. If I may just take up one point, my noble friend also mentioned—I believe in his concluding remarks—that tonight we must represent the public. I would just like to remind him that the public's Members of Parliament have already voted on this, and they voted 128 votes to 91 to accept it. I am rather doubting that they will take kindly to a remark saying that we know more about public opinion than they do.

May I turn briefly to the role of the local planning authority. I regret Lambeth Council's decision not to participate fully in the competition process, but it was their decision. Nevertheless, their views contributed largely to the brief for the competition, and hence to the characteristics of the winning scheme. The Waterloo District Plan is theirs and the scheme complies with it.

Among the documents given to all entrants to the competition were the decision on the Green Giant proposals, and the inspectors' reports on the public inquiries into the Green Giant proposals and the proposals for the Effra site. These reports contained a substantial account of the views of the borough council and the GLC. They indicated, for example, the view that an appropriate maximum height would be 300 feet. The present scheme is within that maximum at its highest point and steps down to 200 feet and 150 feet on the two flanks. The highest point of this scheme is lower than one of the adjacent blocks, Market Towers, and is almost exactly 100 feet lower than Millbank Tower on the North Bank. The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, will no doubt note that I am talking about the highest point and not the nearest.

To those who do not like the particular scheme which has been selected, I must repeat that this was not a case of the Secretary of State seeking to impose his tastes on London. It would be indefensible for an individual to seek to impose his personal views. The chosen scheme emerged from a rigorous process run by distinguished experts. Personal tastes are bound to differ, and inevitably not everyone likes the final choice. And I fear it is universal experience in the planning system that objections are infinitely easier to obtain than is support.

I was asked one or two specific questions, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. When she was talking about the speed, I thought that she said at one stage that things would become out of date before they were finished; and in the next breath I thought she said we are going too fast. If I say that this is a "cannot win" position, I really think it is, because the site has been vacant for 25 years, and of course normal criticism is on the opposite score.

My Lords, may I briefly clarify that point? When I was talking about going too fast I was talking about giving permission and building over the whole 13 acres: that it would have been better to have done it in smaller pieces.

My Lords, the noble Baroness said she would have liked it in smaller pieces. I think it is exciting to have available a site of this size. "Will the developer build it?" I was asked. Of course he can never be forced to in planning cases, but the competition brief stated, "It is the promoter's intention to build the project", and the promoter reaffirmed his intention in asking my right honourable friend for an SDO. "Will they build the offices and go away?" No, the SDO is so drafted as to prevent this, by phasing conditions linked to zones. "Can they be forced to adhere to conditions?" Yes, all the same enforcement powers and duties rest for the local planning authority as for any other planning permission. "What if they need to modify?" I think this was Lord Hampton's point. They must go back to Lambeth Council for a new permission for all or part of the site incorporating modifications.

I was also asked about the 5.52 agreements. The answer to that is, No, they can still be made between the developer and the local planning authority. I understand that such agreements are at the moment in the stage of negotiation. I think examples of that are that the community benefits; that is to say, the riverside walk and open space are firmly enshrined in the drawings referred to in the SDO. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and I think also the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, mentioned land use issues. These have been settled already in the normal way—you may or may not agree with them—both in the Greater London development plan and the Waterloo district plan prepared by the GLC and Lambeth Council respectively.

The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned cutting off the river. No doubt we have in a way cut off the river visually from the busy roads of Vauxhall Cross, but I believe, in a wider sense, so far from cutting off the river, this scheme enormously increases public access. The noble Baroness mentioned that the conditions are vague. I would say, with respect, that if the order is studied in conjunction with the drawings referred to in it, the phasing conditions in the order and the great degree of detail in the drawings tie down very tightly indeed whoever wishes to implement the permission and the powers of enforcement for this permission are the same as for any other.

So, in conclusion, what does this special development order offer? I submit that it is an exciting opportunity to end 25 years of uncertainty and dereliction with a scheme of high architectural quality which meets the conditions of the approved development plan. It will provide places of work for several thousand people. It will provide 210 residential units. And it will benefit the general public. It will provide 1,800 feet or new riverside walk. At present, the walk along Albert Embankment stops at Alembic House, but this scheme will extend it to a point beyond Vauxhall Bridge. I the European Ferries and Effra sites had been developed separately, the link between these two houses, which passes in front of two other office blocks, could have been delayed indefinitely. That would be a great loss to Londoners. This scheme will also provide riverside open space, and thereby encourage the public to enjoy their river. It will provide two public houses, shops and a leisure centre. It will provide a substantial addition to Lambeth's rate base; if it existed now, it would probably be £5-£10 million per year. While the scheme is being constructed, it will provide a substantial boost to the construction industry. I should declare an interest in that I am a Londoner and I believe this building will add great visual beauty to the South Bank.

The Government hope the scheme will set an example in encouraging higher architectural quality and the use of competitions to secure it, both on the banks of the Thames and elsewhere. The last competition on this scale in the United Kingdom was for this House. It also was on the banks of our capital city's greatest natural asset. Not everyone thought the winning scheme was the best one then—but the choice has stood the test of time. I am convinced that the Vauxhall Cross site too will stand the test of time. I hope, with these explanations and with encouragement from noble Lords on all sides, that the noble Baroness may see fit to withdraw her prayer.

My Lords, first let me thank those noble Lords who spoke in support of my prayer and also those noble Lords who did not speak in support of it but were very interesting to listen to. I thought that the Minister certainly gave a very full and broad answer to the many points that were raised. I only wish that I felt the plan was anything as good as the way in which he expressed it. However, the feeling and the concern goes far beyond this House and even beyond the people who have great concern in another place. One only has to see and hear what has been said about this by people of all political parties and various views. I am certainly not convinced that this was an occasion to use the SDO. I am still extremely concerned about the way in which the competition was conducted, although that is no reflection on the RIBA; it concerned, I think, the way in which the brief was drawn up and the final stage.

However, it is late and I do not want to open the debate again. So I finish by saying that, although I speak on behalf of my party on this matter in expressing our very deep concern, we on this Bench take the view that we should not fly in the face of an unfortunate decision that was taken in another place, which is an elected Chamber; however, I cannot speak for other noble Lords in this House.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 3, line 42, leave out subsection (5).

My Lords, I enjoyed listening to the noble Lord's quotation of those extracts. I confess that my late night reading has been a little short in the last couple of weeks and although he mentioned that he would quote that to me, I am afraid I have not had a chance to look at it myself. He will not be surprised to hear that the Government cannot accept the amendment which, as he says, seeks to apply the affimative resolution procedure to orders made under Clause 3 of the Bill for a period of three months from the coming into force of the powers in the Bill in relation to the book entry transfer system.

The amendment is not dissimilar from one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in Committee on 30th June. That was resisted on the grounds that to subject the regulations made under Clause 3 to the affirmative resolution procedure would be inappropriate and time-consuming. The position has not changed since then and the Government remain of the view that regulations of a highly technical nature, which is what they are, of the sort to be made under Clause 3, could sensibly and properly be submitted to Parliament by means of the negative resolution procedure, as it is proposed to do in the Bill.

Perhaps I might point out at this stage that to make the procedure subject to the negative rules under Clause 3 parallels exactly the Government's stock regulations in that they follow the negative resolution procedure, and the noble Lord will find the statutory basis for that enshrined in Section 47 of the Finance Act 1942.

Leaving aside the general merits of the proposal, the amendment does not achieve in practical terms what I think the noble Lord sets out to do. We have no way of knowing at the present time whether the principal orders under Clause 3 will be made before the expiry of three months, but even if that were the case, I can see nothing in the amendment to stop a Government from postponing the introduction of the regulations until after the deadline had passed if they were determined to avoid parliamentary debate. Earlier this evening we had a perfectly good example of the way in which the negative procedure can be used to debate the sort of issues which the noble Lord seeks now to make subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

The amendment as it stands is unlikely therefore to produce the sort of further parliamentary safeguards he has in mind and which we consider unnecessary. I can only reiterate at this late hour what I said in Committee; namely, that the regulation-making power conferred by Clause 3 is to establish the technical framework for computerised transactions. It affects settlement of contracts already made; it does not change the form of contract. I hope that clears up a point the noble Lord made. The Government have no plans to bring into the regulations things which should properly be considered elsewhere. That is not the purpose of the Bill. I hope that on the basis of this further explanation of the Government's intentions in respect of the regulations, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his succinct reply. When he said it would be open to any Government to postpone making any regulation under the clause until the three months had expired, that assumes they have something to hide. It assumes that they are so afraid of the affirmative procedure that they would deliberately choose the negative procedure as a means of avoiding discussion in Parliament. I do not very much care for that. I do not very much care for that at all; nor do I accept the view that because a matter is technical, it should somehow be beyond the power of the ordinary parliamentarian, whether in this place or in another place, to have a full opportunity to give his affirmation. There is nothing mysterious about the term "technical". Every profession erects around itself its own mystique. Lawyers are particularly good at it, and accountants have not been unknown to adopt the same kind of technique. But why, because a matter is dubbed with the term "technical", should that put it somewhere into the intellectual stratosphere?

Ignorance of law is supposed to be no excuse. Surely, it should be the function of the legislature itself to understand the legislation that it is passing, to understand the regulations that are being brought forward. Parliament ought not to avoid an issue purely because it contains matters which might loosely be described as "technical"; otherwise all our Bills would be drawn up in such technical terms that the legislature itself could never understand them. In which case everything could go through on that basis under the negative procedure.

I must say in this connection that over the years there have been certain aspects of the Finance Acts—and I do not exempt Governments of my own political persuasion in this regard—that have been so complex that even most astute Members in another place have not been able to understand them. In the case of the Companies Act 1981 I can testify that there were at any rate some Members on the Government side who did not understand their own Bill. This is the kind of danger into which we are getting.

I have no desire to detain your Lordships any longer, and I certainly shall not divide the House. However, I give the noble Lord notice that I shall return to this matter again, and that he might find that his insistence on the adoption of this particular procedure in this Bill may be used by others—not necessarily by me—to his disadvantage and to the disadvantage of his party. Having said that, and having expressed my regret that my endeavours to help the noble Lord, and to help the whole business of parliamentary government, have not been accepted, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.