Lords Sitting of 13 November 1974

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Leicester).
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LORD ALLEN OF FALLOWFIELD
Alfred Walter Henry Allen, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Allen of Fallowfield, of Fallowfield in Greater Manchester, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Peddie and the Lord Hamnett.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

POLICE ATTENDANCE CHARGES
2.46 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, while fully recognising the splendid services rendered by the police in dealing with awkward situations such as those arising at "pop" festivals and football matches, they will state who pays the police for attendance at these events and what the extra charges have amounted to during the most appropriate recent period.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, when police are deployed on private property at the request of the owners, for example in football grounds, a charge is made; otherwise the costs of policing special events including "pop" festivals are met from police funds. I regret that no general estimate of the additional cost is available.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government to consider whether those who enjoy these amenities and games and
774
festivals—and I would say even processions and protests—ought themselves to pay for their pleasure, especially since the Government are short of money which is needed for the needy?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Lord's supplementary question goes a little wider than his original Question. I would certainly have to consider very carefully before accepting the principle that the right to demonstrate should be hedged in with qualifications that people should donate a sum of money to the Home Office or the local police authority. However, the central principle involved in the noble Lord's Question is that when the police are deployed on private property the owners of the property have to bear the cost. That is essentially the principle which underlies the present attitude in this matter.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, do not the consequential effects of interference—I will not call it trouble—with the taxpayer and the nation bear upon all of us, and why should those people not pay for their fun?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: No, my Lords; I do not accept what the noble Lord has just said. The right to demonstrate has been honoured by Governments of different political Parties for many years past. No proposition of the kind the noble Lord has just advanced has been accepted by Governments of either Party, and I very much hope it will not be.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the philosophy embodied in this Question applied to farmers demonstrating in Holyhead last week?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I think the noble Lord who asked the original Question would be in a better position to answer that than I would.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, when police are hurt on private property, who pays for their injuries?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, a policeman who is injured on public duty receives compensation in exactly the same way as he would if he were injured in some other circumstances.

775
But if there is a point involved in this specific aspect which the noble Lord has raised of which I am not aware, I will write to him.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, is this the normal practice? Where is the borderline? If the police are paid separately for functioning on private property, should not those people who pay them bear some part of the cost for policemen who are injured, particularly those who are permanently injured?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, every Saturday a very large number of police officers go to football matches, where the football clubs normally pay for the policing inside the ground. I am not aware of any particular rule covering what happens when a policeman is injured in those circumstances. My assumption would be that the normal rules would apply, but if there is anything in particular which applies in this case, I will write to the noble Lord.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, could not the cost to the police of attending these often rather unattractive meetings be added to the price of the tickets?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, that is presumably the position at the moment. When football clubs arrange with the local chief constable to provide a certain number of policemen for which they have to pay, obviously the spectator pays for that police protection through the admission charges.
LORD CASTLE: My Lords, are we to understand from the noble Lord's Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, that he dissociates himself from the principle that the costs involved in the provocative processions of the National Front in this city should be a charge to the public?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I think that my attitude on the matter is quite straightforward. When demonstrations take place the police will make appropriate arrangements whatever the political philosophy of the people organising the demonstration.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would
776
be a little clearer and more specific. He says that where police are called to private property the owner of the private property should pay the charge. This clearly applies in some cases, but obviously it cannot be applied when police are called to remove a burglar. Can he be a little clearer as to where this line is to be drawn?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I stated earlier the general principle, but, of course, if police are called to private premises or private property because an offence is taking place, in that case obviously the police do not impose a charge.
LORD DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, for the purpose of "pop" festivals, is Windsor Great Park public or private property?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, on the specific matter of the precise circumstances at Windsor—which I rather assumed might have been raised even earlier than the noble Lord has raised it—I understand that the cost of the police action fell on the local police fund, because the Crown Estates Commissioners had not contracted for a police presence and the police themselves decided to take action.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend what is the recognised charge for police accommodation for private purposes, and whether or not there has been any change in the charges which have been made over the past few years?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, as the noble Lord will not be altogether surprised to learn, I cannot give him a detailed answer to the question which he asked because it is rather wider than the Question on the Order Paper. I shall find out the answer and let him know.

PROFITS IN INDUSTRY
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to state what steps they are taking to

777
encourage increased profits in free industry and the nationalised industries so as to provide enough money to meet the Government's requirements for all charges upon the Exchequer.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday announced a series of measures to improve company profitability and liquidity. He also made clear the Government's determination to safeguard the health and efficiency of the nationalised industries by phasing out as quickly as possible those subsidies which are paid in compensation for price restraint.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while congratulating the Chancellor and the Labour Government upon this attitude, may I ask whether "profits" is now no longer a dirty word but is recognised to be the requisite for the life of this land, without which we could not do any of the good things that we want to do?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords. "profits" has never been a dirty word. What really matters is what is done with the profits.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that the majority of wage demands and wage rises now being made go far beyond the guidelines laid down in the social contract?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, that has nothing to do with this case.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, it has to do with the Question, if the noble Lord the Leader of the House will allow. Curiously enough, the biggest inflationary factor, acknowledged by the Government of the day, is wage demands and wage rises. That point was made in the Budget speech yesterday. Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that the Budget, with its predicted steep rises in the cost of rates, gas, electricity and transport, will not adequately compensate industry for the steep rises that it is having to meet, and will not cure the serious cash problem which is now affecting thousands of firms in this country?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, the measures are aimed at providing the right cost environment in which companies can operate efficiently and profit-
778
ably. The Price Code and the corporation tax measures are directed at the point where inflation has hit hardest. These, together with the proposals to ensure an adequate supply of short and medium term finance, should mean that firms which are basically efficient will find that adequate financial resources are available. In addition, where the current economic climate threatens firms which are otherwise viable, funds will be made available selectively under the Industry Act.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since 1947 all Governments, for political expediency, have refused the nationalised industries increases of prices at given times over the years? Is he further aware that some of us are pleased that now the people will at least have to pay an economic price, and that the nationalised industries will then show a profit? I hope that the Tory Party will not exploit the fact that energy costs must increase.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I entirely agree.

CONFERENCE ON MUTUAL FORCE REDUCTIONS
2.56 p.m.
LORD CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made so far in the Conference on Mutual Force Reductions in Central Europe, and how long it is expected to continue.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE. FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, the negotiations on mutual force reductions are still at the exploratory stage and no agreement is yet in sight. But the subject matter is highly complex and all concerned recognise that it will take time to reconcile the differences of approach between the two sides. In the meantime the discussions are proceeding steadily in a businesslike fashion.
LORD CHELWOOD: My Lords, will the Minister give the House a firm assurance that Her Majesty's Government are

779
not contemplating, and will not contemplate, any unilateral cuts in British Force strengths in the Central Front at NATO which are not agreed with our allies, and which are not in accordance with the assymetrical principle, which is one of the guiding principles of NATO?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord has succinctly and accurately summed up Her Majesty's Government's policy.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, does not my noble friend realise that all we are doing is to indulge in wishful thinking? In spite of this body of diplomats having met for quite a long time, they are still engaged in exploratory discussions. Does my noble friend really expect anything fruitful to emerge from these discussions? Can I have an assur-ance that the Government will not rely on fruitful prospects as a result of these discussions in their consideration of any reductions in defence expenditure?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are not engaged in these extremely difficult and important discussions in any spirit of incautious optimism. These are highly technical and complex discussions, and the question of security is uppermost in the discussions on both sides. I can give the assurances for which my noble friend has asked. As time goes on I think he will see that what he has suggested is born out in practice in the way in which we conduct these negotiations.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, would the noble Lord confirm that it would be Her Majesty's Government's firm policy that if any agreement is reached on any force cuts it would be subject to a system of verification?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there can, of course, be no meaningful disarmament without full inspection and verification.

HALDON OPEN PRISON
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their decision to shut the open prison at Haldon.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, the decision to close Haldon has been taken after a careful review of prison accommodation and the current and likely future composition of the prison population. There have also been local difficulties at Haldon which have for some time prevented the full use of the accommodation. Her Majesty's Government do not believe it would be right, taking all factors into account, to retain Haldon as an active establishment.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Would he not agree that it is a retrograde step if reformable prisoners at present in open prisons were to be forced back to enclosed prisons where, by association, they are likely to become hardened criminals? So far as this case is concerned, in the area of Chudleigh Haldon, where the prison has been both accepted and in cases welcomed, it seems pathetic that it should be closed. I am sure that, realising the difficulties and the resultant public outcry surrounding the opening of a new prison the Government will see that it is a pity to close this one. While they may still want to close it, would they not consider making it an establishment for young adult offenders as recommended in the Advisory Report?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, the Government did consider this matter carefully. As the noble Lord is aware, their consideration covered not only this one but a number of other open establishments. The reason for the Government's decision—if I may trouble the House with the figures concerned—is that in the 12 male open prisons operating in 1973 the average number of prisoners in the first six months of this year was about 3,200, but the amount of accommodation available was for 4,236. Clearly it was not sensible to continue a situation in which a substantial amount of accommodation was not being used. One of the reasons it was not being used is that when planning inquiries took place and these establishments were to be opened assurances were given that certain categories of prisoners would in no circumstances be sent to them. So in

781
the case of Haldon, for example, the Home Office had to give an assurance that prisoners who had been convicted of any offence of violence or for sexual crimes would not be sent there. That indicates to the noble Lord the difficulties involved.

E.E.C. COUNCIL OF MINISTERS MEETING
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will be making a Statement on the E.E.C. Council of Ministers meeting.

DISTRICT COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hughes, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision as respects district courts and justices of the peace in Scotland, to amend Sections 28 and 29 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1959; and for connected purposes. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BILLS)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders be appointed, and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Lord Chancellor (L. Elwyn-Jones),

E. Lauderdale,

L. Airedale,

L. Alport,

B. Bacon,

L. Cawley,

L. Derwent,

L. Terrington.

—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ORDERS
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider all such Special Orders as are referred to them and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

E. Cork and Orrery,

E. Cowley,

L. Archibald,

B. Bacon,

L. Beaumont of Whitley,

L. Cawley,

L. Clwyd,

L. Fletcher,

L. Reay,

L. Stamp,

L. Stow Hill,

L. Teviot,

L. Wise:

and that until further order—

(a) the Committee shall not take into consideration any Special Order unless it has been referred to them by the Chairman of Committees on the ground that it appears to him that the Order would, but for the provisions of the Act authorising the making of the Special Order, require to be enacted by a Private or Hybrid Bill;

(b) if the Committee are of the same opinion as the Chairman of Committees, that is to say, that the Special Order is of the kind described in Standing Order 216(3)(b) paragraphs (4) and (6) of that Order shall apply, but with the omission from paragraph (6) of the words "In every case" to the end;

c) if the Committee are not of that opinion, they shall report that fact to the House forthwith and shall take no further action on the Special Order;

(d) Standing Order 216(8) shall have effect as though for the words "of the Special Orders Committee thereon" there were substituted the words "thereon of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and (in the case of any Special Order referred to the Special Orders Committee) that of the Special Orders Committee."—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

PERSONAL BILLS
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on Personal Bills be appointed, to which all Petitions for Personal Bills shall stand referred; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

E. Mansfield,

L. Cross of Chelsea,

L. Henley,

L. Mancroft,

L. Stow Hill,

L. Wilberforce.

—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WAR ON WASTE
3.3 p.m.
LORD DARLING OF HILLSBOROUGH LORD DARLING OF HILLSBOROUGH rose to call attention to the Green Paper War on Waste—A Policy for Reclamation (Cmnd. 5727); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not know whether it is very unusual for a debate of this kind to be opened with a maiden speech. I am pleased to see that the letter "M" is not against my name on the list of speakers. I should explain that on the many subjects discussed here during the last few weeks this is my first opportunity to make a non-partisan speech. Now that the opportunity comes along my noble friends have prevailed upon me to open the debate. In the circumstances I think I cannot ask for the usual indulgence; I hope any noble Lords wishing to interrupt me will not hesitate to do so. But my noble friends fail to realise the difficulty that I and the House are in, because this is a very wide subject. It covers wide-ranging social policies involving clearing up the environment. It is concerned with a large group of industries having an annual turnover of about £2,000 million, and we are seeking ways and means of doubling that figure.
We are also examining many exciting new projects to make better use of waste, ranging from fish farms and animal feed
784
to new types of materials that can be created from the waste that is now considered useless and which we throw away. The Green Paper presents a comprehensive policy for the recovery of useful materials from industrial waste and domestic refuse. That is its purpose. It is not a complete policy as expressed in the Green Paper. It sets out clearly enough what might be achieved from widespread reclamation and indicates the lines of action that could be followed to attain the maximum extraction of useful materials.
But this statement of policy is just the beginning. As the Green Paper points out, it is the basis of what must quickly become a national drive to cut down waste and promote ways of recovering and re-utilising the materials. It rests on three essential objectives. First, to stop pollution, poisoning the land and water courses with the dumping of toxic wastes; to stop the poisoning effluent that goes into so many of our streams and rivers; and also to stop poisoning the air with the emission of chemical fumes. Secondly, to stop squandering the many scarce industrial materials that are likely to be worked out within a short space of time unless new world resources can be found. Thirdly, to ease our balance of payments by extracting from our own resources materials that we import on too lavish a scale.
I am sure that no one in the country will quarrel with those objectives. What we have to consider is how we achieve them and what needs to be done to make sure that everything that it would pay us to get from our resources will be extracted. All these matters are interdependeni. It is necessary to show in essentially practical ways how each type of waste or refuse can be usefully treated and processed, and then, by using what the Green Paper calls "incentives and disincentives", compel or persuade industries and local authorities to go in for large-scale reclamation on the basis of practical research and development.
It is not difficult to see what is likely to happen if we properly use the "incentives and disincentives" that the Green Paper indicates, or more or less hints at, not spelling anything out at this stage, which is understandable because the range of activity that is involved here is so vast it would be impossible to go into all

785
the details in a document of this size. But let me take first the local authorities and the difficulties and the possibilities that they have. Your Lordships will know that under the Local Government Acts district councils are given the responsibility of collecting refuse, most of it domestic, some of it industrial waste, while the county authorities have the job of disposing of it. Under the Control of Pollution Act the county authorities have to designate the disposal sites, arrange some form of control over them, and put their plans forward to the Department of the Environment for approval. The Act says that they may engage in reclamation, but this is obviously a long-term prospect which is not expected to be included in any immediate plans which the local authorities put forward.
We can already see what is happening and what is likely to happen. The so-called controlled sites will still be dumping places for untreated and often poisonous waste. There is a report in the papers this week which tells us that toxic chemicals and waste oil are being dumped in controlled lagoons in Essex at the rate of 1,000 road tankers a week. This is going on all over the country, though perhaps not quite on that scale. But the point I am making is that it is going into controlled sites. Even when a county authority takes a sterner view of its responsibilities, as in the case of my own county of South Yorkshire, this does not stop the dumping of rubbish; it just puts the sites in more suitable places for rubbish disposal. Because reclamation is very largely an economic problem, which I will refer to later, it is well to look at the cost of providing suitable dumping sites. South Yorkshire conveniently provide the figures for us as they have just published their programme for the next two years. In this relatively small county they are going to open up 25 sites in the next two years, which will be carefully fenced and screened with trees, manned all around the clock, at a cost of £400,000. It is well to bear figures of that magnitude in mind, because in the final calculations of the economics of reclamation these social costs must be taken into account when we decide whether or not propositions for better reclamation are going to pay for themselves.
Of course, it is better to extract usable and saleable materials from this waste, rather than dump it, if only to offset that social cost; but because local authorities have not been given any guidance on the types of treatment plants that they could establish, or any guidance at all on whether or not they will get any financial aid for this kind of project, they are, as in South Yorkshire, more or less inviting the community to go on dumping their old bicycles, tin cans, domestic appliances and other discarded materials, but only on selected sites. No other change is made. So that the lead, the zinc, the mercury from batteries, the copper and aluminium from electric apparatus and old saucepans, the steel from washing machines and so on, and all the plastic, rubber, paper, glass and everything else which could be usefully extracted will go on being buried. This is a foolish policy that must be ended as soon as we can possibly get round to doing it. At some point—and this is where the disincentives come in—we must have a legal prohibition on this kind of dumping.
One can understand the Government's reluctance at this stage to impose a duty on local authorities to set up treatment plants instead of using these dumps. Not enough research has been done, in this country at any rate, to find the most suitable types of treatment plant. There are many operating overseas that we could look at to see whether they could operate in this country; and I am glad to note from recent Government statements that the money and the facilities available at the Government's Warren Springs Laboratory are to be extended to do this kind of work. There are, however, two propositions which I think should be borne in mind, which emerge from research and practical experience. The first concerns the separation of waste, and here I disagree with some of the propositions in the Green Paper. Apart from waste paper, it is a mistake to believe that housewives will separate domestic refuse into different containers. They have tried experiments in other countries, such as in the United States, but apart from paper—and even that not on a 100 per cent. basis—it simply does not work. So that separation of the different types of waste, which is really the beginning of treatment and extraction processes, will have to be done mechanically.
This means—and we had better look at the figures—going back to my county of South Yorkshire, that that county will have to set up one or more treatment plants, if we are to have, as I suggest, mechanical separation and sorting, to deal with something like 1,500 tons of domestic refuse every day; and if, as will almost certainly happen, the plant has also to take in a lot of industrial waste, the daily quantity will perhaps be double that figure. This is a very big operation, but instead of spending £400,000 on just getting sites for this purpose I think it would be better—though I do not know what the figures are—to, shall I say, treble the sum and set up the treatment plants, because that is what is needed.
Of course, one then comes to the question of whether we can afford it. Money is tight, and the Government do not want to spend much more money on public enterprises of this kind; but they clearly involve considerable capital investment. The other proposition which I say we should bear in mind—and I have no time to elaborate it, so I must ask that my word be taken for it at this stage—is that every kind of domestic and industrial waste can be processed to produce usable materials for recycling or for clean landfill, or for anything. Nothing need be wasted, but whether we need treatment plants that recover everything depends, of course, upon the economic factors involved.
My Lords, let me try to put this in perspective by looking briefly at the con- servation aspect. Geologists tell us, as I mentioned before, that the world's deposits of some materials—copper, lead, zinc and so on—will be completely worked out at the present rate of con-sumption within 20 to 50 years unless new resources are found. It is an alarming prospect; and it would be danger-ously foolish in my opinion to imagine that new deposits will be found, perhaps in the sea-bed, and to rely on that, rather than to conserve what we have to the best of our ability; or to imagine that adequate substitutes will be found during this very short period. I think that complacency of this kind is completely fatuous.
Furthermore, a new factor has now to be taken into account. Most of the
788
deposits that we are working for these scarce materials are in the emerging, underdeveloped countries, and they have just been given a very good example, in the case of Middle East oil, of what they should do to conserve their resources and to get a bigger return for what they sell out of their own countries. The tin producers have had buffer-stock arrangements to keep prices stable as far as possible, but those arrangements have now been seen to be inadequate. The bauxite producers in the Caribbean are getting together to control their own supplies and the prices that they will get for them. None of them intends to leave the prices for the things they sell, or to leave the quantities that they can sell, to speculative commodity markets. They are going to be closed—not immediately, but this is a prospect that we must bear in mind when we are thinking of what we can get out of our own resources. It seems to me that we would serve our own national interest by extracting from waste all the scarce materials we possibly can instead of throwing the stuff away.
The metal industries' figures are in the Green Paper. The metal industries recover very large proportions of waste, most of it arising from their own works processes, but they would clearly be far better off with nearer to 100 per cent. recovery than the figures given in the Green Paper. I do not think I need to stress the balance-of-payments case for reducing imports. The figures I have given of what is now euphemistically called "being saved" by using our own indigenous waste to produce raw material is around £2,000 million a year. The Green Paper postulates that by an expansion of present methods of dealing with waste this can be increased by about £400 million (some people put it as high as £500 million) a year. But what we really must aim at is to double, if we can, that figure of import saving, something from £2,000 million to £4,000 million.
We have a large reclamation industry at work; it employs very sophisticated plant, and to think of the Steptoe image in terms of these operations is completely wrong. There is £65 million worth of capital plant being used in the reclamation industries and they employ something like 50,000 workers, so there is a good basis for expansion. I do not want

789
to go much further; I have tried to present very briefly and inadequately the social and conservationist arguments for a concerted reclamation policy.
I now want to look at the industrial problems which industries must face in utilising recycled materials on a larger scale than at present. For a policy of this kind, as explained in the Green Paper, the most serious difficulty, if we are to have massive reclamation schemes, lies in reconciling the inelastic supply of recycled materials to the elastic demands of the products of the using industries. It was this operation of market forces that destroyed the paper salvage scheme after the War when all the pulp that the paper mills required could be obtained from abroad at lower costs than were involved in bringing waste paper into the mills and the processes for dealing with waste paper; so they stopped taking waste paper and local authorities stopped collecting it. The mills now require waste paper because of the high price of pulp, so the salvage schemes are being started again.
However, if the local authorities, the scrap merchants and the waste processors are geared up for an almost complete recovery of the materials about which we are speaking and they are using expensive plant for the purpose then they cannot operate on a "stop-go" basis. Their supplies should be regular and they will need long-term contracts in prices and deliveries so that everything which they collect, process and make available will be taken. But if the using-industries' markets weaken and if import costs fall below the contract prices for reclaimed material then the contracts which they make will be a financial burden. Most scrap is difficult to store. It is bulky and most of it deteriorates in store. Therefore we have to find an answer to this dilemma.
I think the answer is twofold: first of all, wherever it is possible to do so the scrap should go through a primary process for easier storing, perhaps with some fiscal relief—I think this may be necessary—to cover the storage costs. Secondly, the contracts should include some kind of deficiency payments scheme so that if import prices fall below the cost of home supplies this can be covered. We have operated it before in agriculture and I regret that we got rid of it. This
790
is the same problem. A national reclamation policy cannot operate except in guaranteed markets. They must have stability. This need not be costly. The British Steel Corporation, for instance, would have been about £15 million better-off a year or so ago if instead of cutting off scrap supplies when the market for steel went down it had still continued to take scrap and had turned it into ingots which can be fairly easily stored. Fifteen million pounds is the price that had to be paid to import ingots of semi-finished steel and also to cover the fact that the orders they could have taken could not have been fulfilled because of this lack of steel ingots. I hope that the British Steel Corporation and the steel industry as a whole has learned this lesson.
My Lords, that is very briefly the Green Paper's outline of what we must seek to achieve, but its policy is still to be initiated and developed. The policy document is only a blueprint at this stage and there must be some authority to ensure that so far as possible it is put into operation. The Green Paper proposes that the planning of these developments and, as it were, operating the policy should be assigned to a Waste Management Advisory Council. I suppose it would be composed of some representatives of the local authorities, the reclamation industries, the industries that create waste, the industries which use waste, everybody who is engaged in research on this business—a kind of representative council that I am sure your Lordships will agree could become a useless mass meeting. It needs to have some kind of Executive. I hope it will be small enough to be effective. It will not be an effective body unless its advice is backed by some authority to put it into operation.
The Green Paper proposes that that authority should be invested in the Department of the Environment and the Department of Industry, and here I should like to say how pleased I am that the Government have appointed two Ministers with special responsibilities in this field. I suppose that the two Ministers when they sit in control of this Advisory Council will give the Council a very big programme of work to be carried out: first of all, a comprehensive plan of research. As I said, far too little is being undertaken in this country and it

791
is spread over too many Governmental, industrial and university institutions.
According to my reckoning—and I may be wrong about this, I have tried to calculate it as carefully as I can—there are fewer than 50 scientists and technicians in the whole country engaged on work of this kind, and much of their work is being duplicated because nobody is coordinating it. It needs to be co-ordinated and the gaps need to be filled. The research does not need to start from scratch in all cases because much has been done overseas, particularly in the United States, and the results are freely available. But I would press the Government—and I hope I have support in this—to go ahead without delay and appoint the Advisory Council. I do not think legislation is needed for it; I think it can be done by Government decision, but in any case we want it set up quickly and with sufficient finance for the work to be started with an adequate staff.
My Lords, I have spoken for too long but I have not covered all the ground which the Green Paper covers. I have dealt with only a small part of an immense field. I have not mentioned the work that still needs to be done to find substitute materials, and to achieve the redesigning of products so that reclamation and recycling can be done far more easily and cheaply than it is now. Nor have I dealt with the problem, which I am sure will be referred to in the debate, of excessive packaging, which is a burden on all the waste disposal authorities in the country. I have not entered a plea which I think needs to be developed—I mentioned it only casually—for the Government to give a lead by requiring a proportion of recycled waste to be included in all the possible materials which they purchase, starting with paper. Indeed, the more one examines the whole subject of reclamation, the more one sees that the prospect which opens is for a big industrial expansion in many new fields, based on our own industries and our own indigenous resources and operated for the nation's economic benefit.
My Lords, I conclude by trying to answer the question that I posed: can we afford the capital investment involved and the many changes in industrial processes which will have to follow? I am convinced that from every aspect—a cleaner
792
environment, the saving of scarce materials and the improvement of our balance of payments—we cannot afford to neglect the opportunities presented here for going ahead with the policy set out in the Green Paper. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.33 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to start by complimenting the noble Lord on his speech. But I think that I must first address myself to the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, and make three points. First of all, I think it is unheard of—certainly, it has been so in my fifteen years' experience of the House—for a noble Lord to make his maiden speech in introducing a debate before he has spoken in another one. Secondly, I think all noble Lords, particularly those taking part in this debate, would want me to protest at the fact that the letter "M" is missing from the noble Lord's name on the list. Thirdly, I wish to protest on my own behalf in that, having inquired from the noble Baroness's office yesterday whether or not this was a maiden speech, I was told it was not. Having said that, may I acquit the noble Lord himself of any blame in this procedural matter. He is a newcomer—and a very welcome one—to our House and cannot possibly be held to blame. I should like to go on immediately and to—
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, may I say at once that, in the first place, the entire responsibility is mine. I had inquired and I thought that in the mélée of the last Session the noble Lord had "broken his duck". I was wrong about that and take the entire responsibility for it, and I apologise for any embarrassment that my noble friend has suffered. However, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that what has been done is not, in fact, unheard of. It is certainly the custom of the House that this does not happen, but it is not unheard of. Nevertheless, I take entire responsibility. I apologise to my noble friend that the magic letter "M" is not after his name, but I think that all noble Lords present will know that his is a maiden speech.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, I am sure, and I am only sorry

793
that this matter should have intervened in this debate. I want to go on immediately to compliment the noble Lord on his maiden speech, and to say how much the whole House will value it. Last time we were debating this subject four and a half years ago on a Motion of my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley, I believe that the noble Lord had just become, or had just been invited to become, chairman of a group established by the waste trades to go into this whole business, and we are therefore particularly glad to have the benefit of his experience in that field and to know that he retains his interest in the subject. The noble Lord's speech was marked by a close knowledge of the subject and incisiveness, the lack of which would be one of my criticisms of the Green Paper. In any case, we are very glad to hear him address us and look forward to his doing so again on many future occasions.
My Lords, I have not yet had the opportunity from the Dispatch Box personally to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to the environmental arena. I am glad that she is there now and that we have a Minister in this House who can address herself wholeheartedly to this large field. I am sure that she will have already discovered that doing battle on fronts which fully occupy six or seven Ministers in another place calls for nimbleness and versatility, and for many other qualities as well. I should like to wish her well and I think we can pledge our support in a number of fields on which she will be speaking to us, though we cannot guarantee her an easy ride on every occasion.
To turn to the subject of waste, this is now, rightly, a matter for earnest concern, if not one that arouses passionate debate like some other topics with which we have to deal, even when a clarion call to a war on waste is made as in a Green Paper. Nevertheless, it is an important subject and in the last few months and years it has become much more urgent than it was when my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley put it before us four and a half years ago. The concern to husband carefully the world's resources, all of which are finite, was widely thought until recently to be a sphere for devoted cranks and rather impractical visionaries. Now, and particularly since last winter when so many
794
basic commodities—not only oil—have so vastly increased in price, the need for better husbandry is a matter of the greatest practical moment, not just for prophets and visionaries, but for practical statesmen.
The public adjustment to the realities which we now face in the conservation of resources is already becoming a painful process for us. It now affects us all. It affects many more in the less favoured countries, and affects them far more painfully than it does us at the moment. But the inconvenience which we now feel in this country and the suffering that many more already endure elsewhere, are as nothing compared to what we, and, even more, our successors, will face if we do not now come to terms with the need to conserve the resources which we have on this planet, to share them more widely and to use them less wastefully. The avoiding of waste in the first instance and the re-use of avoidable waste are essential and integral parts of this husbandry and stewardship of resources. In so far as this Green Paper signifies a determination by the Government to grapple in a resolute way with the proper husbandry of resources, it is most welcome, and I would assure the noble Baroness that she can count on our support for any sensible measures that are proposed in due course.
The Waste Management Advisory Council and the Advisory Group on Waste Paper Recycling, the two bodies mentioned in the Paper, will have our best wishes for the work set before them when they have been established. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will be able to-day to go beyond what her right honourable friend Mr. Howell said in another place last May about the intention to set them up. We have now their terms of reference and we need to know in addition who they are, when they are going to start work and how they are going to approach their first pieces of work.
To turn to the Green Paper, I think it is as well for the noble Baroness that my noble friend the late Lord Conesford is not here, because I think he would have found this Paper much too full of platitudes for his liking. It is one of a shower of Papers which came out between the last two Elections, and has all the

795
marks of having been cobbled together rather hurriedly and before a good deal of the detailed work that needs to be done was ready to be done. In fact, much of the information in this Paper is a good deal less precise than the information put before the House in our last debate by the then Minister, the late Lord Delacourt-Smith. There is not a great deal that is new, nor is there a great deal that is very incisive, but there are a number of emphases that are either missing or false; but these are points I shall come to in a moment. The topic which forms an integral part of the urgent and important task of husbanding world resources, and those of this Kingdom in particular, deserves more penetrating treatment than it gets in this Paper.
I should like now to turn to some of the missing and false emphases, as I would see them. The Paper rightly makes the point in five or six places that one of the most urgent things to do is to see that products are designed to last longer. A waste prevention policy, I would say, comes first, before a waste policy; that is, a policy which seeks in a number of practical ways to reduce significantly the excessive number of "throw-away" products which are deliberately designed not to last.
The first specific question I should like to ask the noble Baroness to answer, if she can. is whether the terms of reference of the WMAC, set out on page 30, do or do not embrace this field. It is suggested that they should have regard to the best use of resources. Does that mean that they are to address themselves to the formulation of policies secured to achieve that end? I am not sufficiently confident that such is the case. If it is not so, whose job is it to do that?—because it seems to me that the first step in the war on waste is not as stated at Chapter 2, paragraph 23, on page 7, that we must at least endeavour to recover everything that can be made to pay for the cost of reclamation. That is not the first step. The first step is to avoid the unnecessary creation of waste. In paragraph 20 of Chapter 2 the Paper makes the rather coy statement that—
"… market forces may in some cases even favour the more extravagant, shorter-lived product …"
796
Of course that is so. In fact, there is often a deliberate manipulation of market forces to do exactly that. So that is one field where I think the emphasis is wrong. I am not satisfied that the terms of reference are right and I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could say more about them.
Another point where I believe the emphasis to be wrong is to put so much on a widespread, indiscriminate and universal campaign of activity and publicity. For example, in Chapter 3 paragraph 12 we read the confident recommendation—and this was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Darling—that taking care of waste paper is one of the things we could do better if separate collection by local authorities were arranged. The issues regarding waste paper are set out in Chapter 3, paragraphs 14 to 19. Your Lordships devoted a lot of time to this during our last debate and in fact the late Lord Delacourt-Smith was able to go into rather more detail on that occasion than the Paper does here. But the wrong approach to this kind of thing—and I give this only as an example—is advocated over and over again in this Paper. We have in paragraph 15 on page 10 talk of "a major concerted effort"; and in paragraph 25 of Chapter 3 "the greatest possible public participation" is mentioned. In Chapter 6, paragraph 12 we have a refererce to "a major publicity campaign". The late Lord Delacourt-Smith said when we were last debating this that more than comprehensive, indiscriminate and universal campaigns we need well planned local campaigns and well planned local activity which are designed to deal with the local sources of supply and waste material and the local markets. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to confirm that it is that approach, rather than the broad-brush one, which the Government will in the end favour.
I should like to turn to one other emphasis which I think is missing from this Paper and which ought to be there. That concerns the reclamation of waste land. The Aberfan disaster was very near to our minds four years ago, and this topic was well to the fore; but here only in Chapter 3, paragraph 24 is there a mention of waste land, and that is as a possible place on which to tip other waste material. But, my Lords, I would put it to you that in this country of all countries—so densely populated—the

797
reclamation of waste land is a matter of major importance, and the need to ensure more positive use of it for all sorts of purposes, but especially in the urban fringe for recreation (which is where a lot of the dereliction lies), is particularly important. I should be grateful, and I believe others would be, too, if the noble Baroness could say more about this and about the progress which is being made, including which of the main reclamation authorities are up to their target on clearing the worst by 1980, and what is going on about putting it to more positive uses. In that connection, could the noble Baroness tell us, too, about the progress of the Verney Committee on the use of aggregates, and particularly the use of waste material for building purposes? The Building Research Station has done a lot of research on which waste materials can be used in what way for what building purposes, and now it is a question of getting the construction industry to use these materials more frequently. This is another example of the kind of policy which the noble Lord, Lord Darling, was advocating, and I was glad that he stressed it.
Finally—and this is another major criticism, I fear—I do not detect in the Green Paper what I would assume to be a more fruitful understanding by the Government of the role of voluntary bodies in all this. I am sure this is not the stage, in this particular field at any rate, at which to regard the voluntary bodies as auxiliaries and supplementary agencies to what the local authorities are doing. What is much more necessary at this stage is for the voluntary bodies to stimulate and prod the local authorities into action where they are inactive, and to criticise policies where they are wrong. This is a much more uncomfortable role for Central Government and local government, but I think it is the right role for the voluntary bodies to adopt at this stage in this field. I should like to know what plans the Government have for stimulating and encouraging the work of voluntary bodies in this field, and what particular bodies, and also what mechanism of support and assistance they have in mind. Effective liaison at local level—which is the phrase the Paper uses—may not be right particularly if it is as cosy as chapter 3, paragraph 26 suggests. That is the kind of phrasing which indicates to me that the Government at
798
the moment are misjudging the most effective role for voluntary bodies in this field.
My Lords, I am afraid I have concentrated, as I think it is right for the Opposition to do, on the points about this Paper which I want to criticise. All sides welcome the fact that the Paper has come out at all and the indications in it that the Government take this matter seriously and intend to do something about it. They will welcome it even more if the noble Baroness is able to take us beyond what we read in this Green Paper.

EEC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETING
3.51 p.m.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The Statement reads as follows:
"At the meeting of the Council of Ministers on November 12 I discussed with my Community colleagues the long-term problems we are facing over sugar and also our renegotiation request concerning the British contribution to the Community budget. The remaining items on the agenda were dealt with by right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and by my honourable friend Mr. Roy Hattersley, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
"The House will be glad to know that the Council reached provisional agreement on a mandate to the Commission for negotiations with the developing Commonwealth sugar producing countries. The mandate concerns the arrangements for their sugar exports to the Community from 1975 onwards.
"It was agreed that the Community should offer access for 1·4 million tons of sugar a year on a continuing basis.
"The Government were also anxious to secure that the bulk of the 1·4 million tons should come to the United Kingdom for refining in order to assist the cane refining industry. I am glad to say that the Council accepted that in practice the great bulk of the sugar

799
would be exported to the Community in accordance with traditional channels of trade. It follows that British refineries will get the bulk of the sugar delivered to Europe by the Common-wealth producers.
"There was considerable discussion on the price that should be paid for the sugar. It was understood that a fair price will have to be offered if supplies are to be secured. But this is a matter which is closely related to the Community's internal sugar regime and it was decided that the Agriculture Ministers should settle this at their meeting on November 18–19.
"The Agriculture Ministers will also have to look at the question of the duration of the agreement with the sugar supplying countries. We take the view that the arrangement should be for a number of years in order to safeguard the interests of both our traditional Commonwealth suppliers and our own cane refining industry. This view is accepted by the other members.
"When the Council of Agriculture Ministers reach agreement on a final mandate at their meeting next week the informal consultations which the Commission has already been conducting with the supplying countries will then be turned into formal negotiations with a view to reaching an early agreement.
"I also carried further the discussion of our contribution to the Community budget. The House will recall that the Commission were asked by the Council on June 4 to produce a Report. A copy of this was placed in the Library of the House on October 29, and was before the Council yesterday. It broadly supported the two main contentions in my speech of June 4. First, Britain is already below the Community average as far as income per head is concerned and, because it is expected that our growth rate will continue to be below the Community average, for the time being, our income per head will decline further before, as we hope, it starts to climb back again. Second, our contribution to the Community budget is going to be substantially above our fair share in relation to the Community's total GDP. This situation must be remedied. Though I
800
made it clear that we were ready to consider solutions to deal with the problem, I suggested that the Community might accept as a principle that member states with below-average GDP per head should not bear a share of the burden of financing the Community budget disproportionate with their share of the Community's GDP.
"The first reactions of the other Governments were varied. But I noted in a number of speeches round the table that my analysis was not disputed. There is still a long way to go before we find out whether all concerned are ready to agree to a solution which we can accept. The matter will now be discussed intensively in the Community. I would like to be able to make progress towards a solution at the next Council meeting on December 2/3, or, failing that, at the Summit in Paris the following week."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.57 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for repeating that Statement made by his right honourable friend. Regarding the latter part of it which concerned our contribution to the EEC budget, I am sure that it will meet with the accord of most people if a formula i can be found for re-adjusting a contribution made by any member State if the country's share of the community's total GDP is out of line. In a developing and flexible Community that must be so. Am I to understand that there is general agreement within the Community on that principle, and that the only difference arises on the specific issue of what our contribution should be?
Regarding sugar—and this was a very important Statement—the House will be glad to know that the Community agrees in principle to accept 1·4 million tons from the developing countries. The noble Lord will agree that the problem now is to get the developing countries to sell that sugar to the community, and the operative factor there will be price. The Statement says that there should be a fair price. Do I understand correctly that the price will be fixed at the next meeting of the Agricultural Ministers and will then be announced? Or will the price be a

801
negotiable one based on the agreement arrived at with the Ministers on the one hand, and the Caribbean countries on the other? Can the noble Lord say what is the anticipated date for the conclusion of these formal negotiations after the agreement? As I understand it, the Agricultural Ministers are to make their agreement on November 18 and 19 and then give to the Commission the powers to negotiate with the Caribbean countries, and thereafter there will be an agreement. Can the noble Lord give us any idea of when that agreement is likely to be arrived at? As I understand it, until that agreement is arrived at no refiners are in a position to be able to import any sugar into this country—and the time-scale is already extremely short, being only two months between now and February 1. Can the noble Lord give us the assurance that the time-scale will be such as to ensure that there will be adequate time for this sugar to be loaded and brought into the country and into the refineries before February 1?
4 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Statement here, and may I also ask a few questions in regard to the time element and the price element? The Statement says that it was agreed that the Community should offer access for 1·4 million tons. Would the Minister be able to say to whom this offer will be made? Will it be made to the new Association which I think has been formed of about 44 different countries—countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific—and can he give any indication as to the time element involved in making this offer? Then there is the second aspect of the continuing basis of that Agreement. Are the EEC Ministers going to propose to that Association or to any particular country that the basis should be for a period of five or seven years? As to price, would it be possible for the noble Lord to indicate that the price which will have to be paid by the United Kingdom will be much less than the fair price which may have to be paid by the EEC?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would the noble Lord—
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, perhaps it would be for the con-
802
venience of the House if I addressed myself to the two rather substantial contributions which we have just heard. I am grateful to both noble Lords, and to the noble Lord opposite who has deferred his contribution for the moment. In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, may I say that we have no preferred solution in regard to tackling the budgetary imbalance with which we are concerned. As I think he impliedly hoped we would, we shall certainly listen to and consider any proposal which will implement the principle of equity of contribution. This will in no way affect the question of the gestre tour which concerned some of our friends in the Community, and i think it is the right way to go about it to establish a basic equity of contribution, whichever way it is done. We shall consider any proposal to that effect.
I turn now to sugar. We believe there is agreement in principle. It is, as the noble Earl said, a question of supply. Access is one thing; availability may well be another. However, we have fair confidence that up to 1·4 million tons will be available as well as capable of access during the period that we mentioned. The operative factor is, as he has said, that of price. We define it as a fair and realistic price to the countries concerned, which invariably depend, perhaps disproportionately, on this commodity. We would hope, therefore—we would expect, therefore—that the Community will have regard to the dependence of these countries on this one commodity when they approach the question of price. As the noble Earl knows, we ourselves have said that we will start at £140 a ton, which is somewhat in excess of the existing commodity price per ton. But as he pointed out, duration is also operative here. I would not wish to prejudge the discussions of next Monday or the negotiations that will follow on the meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers next Monday, but I think he made an important point about duration. It could be that these countries would find in a fairly long duration of guarantee of access and of supply a reason for perhaps being fairly flexible on price. One would not wish to prejudge the negotiations.
As to the date of conclusion, I agree that this is immensely important both from the point of view of our refineries,

803
which depend on the availability of this sugar, and also from the point of view of our housewives. I cannot give a firm guarantee, but this much I can say with confidence: we expect that as soon as the parameters of negotiation have been settled next Monday and the Commission then proceed on the authority of the Agriculture Ministers to the actual negotiations, conclusion will be reached fairly soon so that the implementation of the new Agreement can follow equally soon after that. The noble Earl has underlined the need for swiftness in these negotiations; and I believe that my right honourable friend has impressed this upon our partners in the Community.
To turn to my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I agree with him also that access is one thing; availability may well be another with the world price being what it is, escalating almost every day. However, for the reasons I have just given to the noble Earl, we have reasonable confidence that the countries which depend upon the sale of this commodity, not now but for the indefinite future, will measure their demands as to price and their willingness to supply against that background. This brings me to the noble Lord's second point, equally important: how long would the time-scale of undertaking to purchase be? Would it be for some years—five years? I would say at least five years, and, we would hope, indefinitely. We interpret the words, "on a continuing basis" as being indefinitely. These are countries which the Community, like the United Kingdom, recognise as being overly dependent upon this sugar industry. I have dealt with price in what I said in reply to the noble Earl.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord is very optimistic about supply. The present price of sugar would repre-sent an import cost of at least £700 million. Neither Britain nor Europe can possibly afford that. From the bargaining point of view, would it not be much better to have sugar rationing in this country so that we could show to the producers that we really mean business to get sugar at a reasonable price? Otherwise I think we shall not get the sugar unless we pay the world price.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not yet persuaded that there is a case for
804
sugar rationing. As to the price, we all know of course that the world price is very high indeed and may go higher yet. However, in regard to making good the shortfall of supply to this country as a Member of the EEC, as the noble Lord knows, the Community has agreed to make a subsidy available.
LORD LEE OF NEWTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us are happy that he saw the point of the enormous importance of this Agreement to our friends in the Pacific and in the Caribbean? But is he further aware that sugar refining capacity in this country alone is some 1·7 milliontons—in other words we have 300,000 tons from Australia which are not now under consideration—and it is therefore vital that we should stress the need for practically the whole of the 1·4 million tons to come into this country for refining? Otherwise, there will be pretty heavy unemployment in the refining industry.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Statement I read made it clear that the great bulk of the 1·4 million tons, which is now guaranteed to have access to this country, would in fact come to us through the normal channels of trade and in that way be available to our refining industry. This is one of the primary objectives of our negotiations earlier this week in Brussels.
My noble friend is quite right when he says that the normal amount of sugar from both ECP and Australian sources is not 1·4 million but 1·7 million tons. The 1·4 million tons is the guarantee which in every part of the House we have all agreed we should try to get in order to sustain the economy and the wellbeing of the countries to which I have referred. However, the 300,000 tons—the 0·3 million represented by the, so far, non-availability of Australian sugar—will be the subject of discussion, possibly of negotiation, in the coming weeks. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it clear in the House on November 7 that that is still a very live possibility.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I refer to the question of rationing. Is my noble friend aware that some of us pointed out this difficulty during the debates upon our entry into the Common Market? The question was not studied in depth. I do not wish evil upon those

805
who voted for entry, but I hope that they go without any sugar in their Christmas puddings this Christmas! May I ask the noble Lord whether any further discussion was carried on regarding the acreage of sugar beet, because, as my noble friend has pointed out, there will be in the region of tens of thousands of jobs which will not be held unless we can obtain about 1·7 million tons of sugar. This was pointed out in an excellent and constructive article in the Sunday Times on the sugar problem. I should like to know whether the sugar beet position, and acreage, were discussed at the Common Market discussions this week.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, they were not discussed specifically, but the background contains the facts about our own beet shortfalls in production to which my noble friend has referred. We are some 300,000 tons down on what we would normally expect to achieve from our own beet production. That is because of disease. However, the A and B quotas which the Community has granted to this country are very favourable indeed if we can. or care, to achieve them. Under the A category we shall go from 900,000 to 1,050,000 tons (which is a substantial percentage increase in terms of the resources of the industry, manpower and all the rest); and under the B category there will be another 460,000 tons, which represents a very big jump indeed. Therefore one is not unduly anxious about the future of the beet sugar contribution to our requirements in this country. What I think we must increasingly consider is how we in this country, and secondly the Community, so arrange our indigenous production as to make full use of our resources for this purpose in land, manpower and machinery and at the same time honour our pledge, which is a moral and practical one, to the countries which overwhelmingly depend upon the production of cane sugar for their very existence.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, are there not two very important elements which would have to be very seriously considered with a view to reaching a reasonable price?—and that is a reasonable price for the Community and also for the sugar producing countries. One is that these countries are relying mainly upon the production of cane sugar for
806
their existence. The fact is that over the last two or three years there has been a very high increase in the price of other raw materials and commodities which they would need to sustain their livelihood. Secondly, due to inflation, is it not also a fact that they have had to pay much higher prices for vehicles and tractors—that is, for the equipment which they need for developing the production of their cane sugar?
LORD G0R0NWY-R0BERTS: My Lords, that is all very true, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing the attention of the House to those factors.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, may I suggest with great respect that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is deserving of our congratulations for the progress he has made at this very important meeting. May I also make the comment that I was very glad to hear in the Statement that our relative poverty is described as something in regard to which we shall eventually turn the corner. I say this because in other Statements it has been suggested that we should remain in perpetual poverty. Finally, with even more respect, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary used some battle metaphors in his public relations; and, of course, if one is negotiating within a few miles of Waterloo that is quite natural. However, may I suggest that it should be made clear constantly that this is a battle among friends.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that has become increasingly obvious as the renegotiation has proceeded. I recall saying in this House that my right honourable friend speaks frankly and precisely at the conference table, and I believe that the great respect that his partners in Europe hold for him rests upon this fact. May I also agree entirely with my former mentor in the faith which indicates that we are confident that this country will achieve a much bigger percentage GDP in the years that lie ahead than unfortunately we have at the moment.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, in view of the heavy cost of sugar now and the heavy cost to our balance of payments, the Government will consider re-opening the sugar beet factory at Cupar?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is a question of which I should like further notice.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one further question? I am very grateful to him for the way in which he replied to my other question. However, this question is important and it underlines the importance of an earlier settlement. Do I understand that in fact the refiners are not in a position to order any more sugar after February 1 until this settlement has been arrived at between the EEC and the developing countries? If the noble Lord could explain that, I should be grateful.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my understanding is that that is not the position. However, it is a question which is of such importance that I should like to confirm my impression, if the noble Earl will allow me to proceed in that way.
LORD CHELWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord has told us that other important questions were discussed at this meeting. I hope I may raise one other matter with him. Can the noble Lord say whether the question of Parliament's powers was discussed at this meeting? Will it be on the agenda of the Summit meeting? And is the noble Lord aware that successive Summit meetings have paid lip service to the importance of increasing Parliament's powers but that the attitude of the Council of Ministers has been, to put it mildly, lackadaisical? Will Her Majesty's Government use all their influence, therefore, to ensure that there is a real increase in the powers of the European Parliament, particularly where budgetary questions are concerned?
LORD WIGG: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, will he take it that there is a section of Members of this House—not only members of the Labour Party but others who are outside the Labour Party—who would take the gravest possible exception to the giving of any such assurance?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I should take very grave exception to being prevented from giving certain assurances, including that important questions of the kind which the noble Lord has
808
raised should not have their place on any agenda at which Heads of State meet for discussions.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether, under the heading of "Other Trade Matters" to which he referred in his Statement, regional policy is to be discussed? The previous Select Committee on European Community matters decided not to pursue the papers on regional policy because discussion in the Council was in abeyance. It would be of great help to the new Select Committee if the noble Lord could tell this House whether there is a definite timetable when regional policy will be discussed?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the agenda for the meeting at which the two points which are the content of the Statement were discussed did, indeed, include such questions as those raised by the noble Lord and regional development questions. How far those questions were discussed, having regard to the urgency of the two matters to which I referred in the Statement, I could not say. However, I should be very glad to make a Statement in one form or another indicating the pace at which these matters were discussed.

WAR ON WASTE
4.20 p.m.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, returning to the war on waste, I should first like to offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, on an excellent maiden speech. I was not quite clear why the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, took such exception to what was done. The noble Lord, Lord Darling, told us in his first sentence that it was a maiden speech so none of us need have been under any misapprehension and, if I may say so, it was just the sort of maiden speech that your Lordships like. It was quite non-controversial and extremely well-informed and well-expressed. I am quite sure that we shall often hear the noble Lord on future occasions, and probably when he gets on to controversial subjects we shall enjoy his speeches even more.

809
This is a suitable occasion to discuss the question of the war on waste, and our thanks are due to the noble Lord for having tabled this Motion; and, indeed, to the two Secretaries of State for having prepared this discussion paper. Of course it is not a complete policy document: it is in a green cover, which we all know means that it is for discussion. At this stage, when we face serious economic problems in this country, I think we would all agree that the elimination of waste could make an important contribution to the improvement in our economic position.
But, my Lords, should we not perhaps be a little ashamed that during the many years of seeming prosperity—I say "seeming prosperity", because I think that sometimes the prosperity was not quite as great as it appeared; and of course we know that prosperity has not been fairly divided in this country—we felt, somehow, that we could afford waste. How dare we at any time say that we can afford waste when there are millions of people living in want in the world? So I believe that the Government's campaign against waste has a moral as well as an economic and environmental basis, and I hope and believe that it will have wide support in Parliament and in the country.
The mechanics which are outlined in the Green Paper are naturally not entirely clear. I instinctively shudder when yet another body is set up—another advisory council—but having shuddered on this occasion I settled down to agreeing that for this purpose it is right to have a body outside any Government Department, examining in depth the many different ways in which the war on waste can be carried on. At one time during the noble Lord's opening speech, I thought he was suggesting that this advisory council had an executive function. But he cleared up that point a little later on, and the executive function rests with the Secretaries of State.
I am not too worried about the terms of reference to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, referred. In my experience, if bodies are properly set up with the right people on them they do not take a great deal of notice of their terms of reference; they go and do, or advise, what they think necessary: I hope that the body that it appointed for this purpose
810
will do just that. I agree also with the Green Paper and with the noble Lord, Lord Darling, that local authorities will have an important role to play. But we must remember that each new role costs the ratepayers more money; and, in passing, I think one can emphasise again the need to speed up the investigation into the fundamental reform of local government finance.
There is one point in regard to the role of the local authorities which was mentioned by the noble Lord which I should like to inquire about, perhaps through the noble Baroness who is to reply to this debate. The noble Lord reminded us that the local authorities are required—I think by Statute—to undertake the reception of a certain amount of industrial waste. I wonder whether in this new set-up, at whatever stage it is necessary to introduce legislation, it could be left to industry to be basically responsible for its own wastes. I know that this is a difficult subject and that many industries have extremely difficult problems. But it seems to me that if there is waste in industry—and I shall return to this subject in a few minutes—it is much better for industry to try to deal with it. I agree, of course, with the Green Paper in the suggestion that direct Government aid is needed for research, and this is very welcome.
It is clearly explained in the Green Paper that the problems of reclamation are two-fold—the industrial and the domestic. Industry is already doing a lot and I suggest that active managements know the simple fact that waste is wasteful. But I believe that there is occasionally the feeling that if adequate profit is being made the search for more efficient processes is not worth the trouble and expense; because we must remember that research involves expense which sometimes brings no result. So I hope that the new advisory council will recommend all industries to examine carefully the processes which they are carrying on, to see whether at least some waste can be eliminated.
I had a very interesting experience of this when I shared the responsibility for trying to keep the tidal Thames cleaner. We had tremendous trouble with the paperworks, because the effluent from them was, to put it mildly, pretty damaging to the river.

811
After a great deal of patient discussion and a certain number of veiled threats, some of the paper companies got down to the problem and they discovered that they could not only extract a lot of the offensive material from their effluent, but could use it again to their advantage. I believe that if many industries were to tackle the problem in that light they might find other similar advantages coming to them. This is an example of the secondary effects which we may hope will result from recent anti-pollution legislation. In passing, I might say that that example occurred before the recent legislation was on the Statute Book.
There is a very special problem in regard to mining and quarrying wastes. They form a special category which have a profound impact on the environment. Inevitably, in the process of mining and quarrying some material that is useless for the purpose of a particular enterprise is won. But it costs human effort and money to build up those huge, unsightly slag heaps and if some use can be found for the material some money then comes back to the enterprise and those who have laboured to build up the slag heaps may not feel quite so despondent.
Those of your Lordships who know the West Country will be familiar with the great heaps outside the china clay workings. Perhaps they are not so unsightly as some slag heaps in the North and in the Midlands; at a distance they look rather attractive. But there they were, great heaps of unusable material, until somebody found that by compacting they could be made into suitable building material, and all over the South-West houses are now built with blocks made from this material. I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, probably had that in mind when he referred to the work that is being done on other forms of waste material to see how far they could be used for building.
If I may now turn to domestic waste, as the Green Paper says waste paper is the obvious candidate to be confidently recommended for separate collection. I was surprised to find that it constituted from 30 to 40 per cent. of all domestic waste, but that emphasises how important it is to take every advantage to collect waste paper separately. As we know, some local authorities already organise
812
separate collections, but the difficulties outlined in the Green Paper, and mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, have intervened where price considerations have from time to time made it undesirable, or uneconomic to accept waste paper in this way. I fully agree with the noble Lord that some balancing machinery ought to be invented, so that a continuous demand can be maintained.
Of course, we know that there are many local organisations—bodies such as the Women's Institute—apart from the local authorities, which collect waste-paper and thereby make a modest income which I hope is free of income tax and will remain so. These bodies are valuable for the activities which they carry out in the community, and for the donations which they make to charity. The Green Paper refers to some practical difficulties in the collection of waste paper; for instance, the expense to a local authority. I wonder whether in certain areas this collection could be assisted in some way. Here is a suggestion for the new Advisory Council to consider when it comes into being, of some new type of collecting vehicle which could have separate compartments for waste paper and other refuse. As regards the difficulty of providing waste bins in blocks of flats where there is not much room, surely it would be possible to have, in addition to the normal waste bin for each flat, a communal waste bin for paper.
Many years ago—in fact, this is going back to before the war—I was told of a process developed in Southern Italy, which can best be described as a sort of maxi-composting system for dealing with domestic waste. The waste is put into sealed cylinders, raised to a high temperature, and after a certain number of days it comes out as if from a compost heap; a quite sterile substance suitable for use as a fertiliser. I believe I am right in saying that this system was tried in London, and perhaps elsewhere. In London there was a plant at Wood Lane in Hammersmith, but I think I am right in saying that it was for the Royal Borough of Kensington. The plant ran into a number of difficulties, largely connected with the difficult problem of sorting. There were certain—not many—commodities such as tins which had to be kept out of the mix. Unfortunately, this involved sorting by hand, an unpleasant

813
task, and today an almost impossibly expensive operation. Would it not be worthwhile looking at this again? I inquired of an Italian friend of mine yesterday whether he knew anything about it, and he thought it was still going on in Southern Italy.
My Lords, this Green Paper has been concerned almost exclusively with reclamation. The sub-title of the Green Paper is, A Policy for Reclamation. If noble Lords will look at the introduction, it says:
"The Government believe that there should be a new national effort to conserve and reclaim scarce resources—".
To my mind, conservation is far more important and has far greater potential than reclamation. The old adage, "Prevention is better than cure" describes what I mean. When we think of conservation, our minds naturally think first of energy. Do we take the conservation of energy seriously? I do not know how many of your Lordships have recently visited the United States, but there is a country whose energy position is definitely superior to ours, since they have a considerable indigenous production. Yet in every hotel room you find a leaflet asking you to turn out the lights. There are all sorts of notices left about, calling the attention of the population all the time to the fact that there is an energy crisis. In this country it seems to me that we have failed to do that.
It is true that yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased VAT on petrol, no doubt with a view to persuading people to plan their journeys more economically. That is all to the good. But I still feel that we have not really faced the fact in this country that there is a tremendous amount to be saved if we really take seriously the energy shortage. The biggest item of all is the insulation of our houses; the preservation of heat within them. Apart from voluntary effort, this requires an alteration in the housing regulations. I express the hope that the Government may think fit to introduce some amendment to that effect in the near future.
While on the subject of energy, I must say something about coal—our great indigenous source of energy. I hope that this will not cause offence, but I wish to say that if for any reason—and I shall not
814
discuss the reasons—we cannot bring into use the maximum possible amount of our principal natural resource, we shall as surely be wasting it at this critical time as if we are throwing it away. That is a slight overstatement, because the coal will still remain in the ground, but now is when we want it. Coal is not a resource until it is at the power station.
There is another source of energy which I thought I might mention; that is, food. Those of your Lordships who listened to the speeches of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, will remember the picture they painted of the desperate food situation in the world as a whole. Do we eat too much? A given quantity of food is needed to provide the energy which keeps us "on the go". I am not at all a medical person, but I would hazard a guess, that if we eat more than that amount the effect is not more energy but less; one feels lethargic. I know that this sounds a rather gimmicky sort of statement, but it was suggested that those people in another place should have no meat on the menu one day a week. That would be only a gesture, but would that gesture lead us eventually to realise that one of the things we waste in this country—I am not referring to the people on the very bottom of the economic scale, but to most of the population above the medium income scale—is a good deal of food? Would it not do some good as well if it could be brought home to people—that this is waste; a waste of things we import, or grow ourselves, whichever way we look at the matter?
I have gone a little beyond the Green Paper, because that was devoted only to reclamation. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to tell us that a further Green Paper will come on the subject of the saving of our resources, of economy in our resources. If so, I think it would be welcome to all of us. In conclusion, may I express my apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, and to the noble Baroness for the fact that I am unable to stay to the end of the debate, as I have a commitment in connection with the present meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly in which I have the honour to be one of your Lordships' representatives.
4.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF SHANNON: My Lords, like others, I must express my congratulations and gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, for enabling us to debate this potentially very profitable topic this afternoon. We are grateful to the Government for their Green Paper, giving us an outline of their thoughts. In respect of this subject, I must declare my usual interest in the industrial research associations. Hence, my intervention will have to be confined mainly to the technological aspects. I should like to dilate upon the subject of motivation of the public to carry out the sorting of domestic refuse voluntarily, which action would be uneconomic were this labour to be paid for. However, I am sure that there will be other speakers in this debate who arc far better qualified than I to speak on this particular subject.
When considering this subject of altering our present wasteful habits, perhaps it would be profitable to inquire first how these habits evolved. This leads one to consider the situation prior to that pertaining at present and, without necessarily attempting to put the clock back, to see whether some retracing of the path which we have followed is feasible, desirable or even possible. I do not wish to delay your Lordships with tedious detail of such a survey, but I think one outstanding point does emerge, and that is that the present situation has arisen from purely economic reasons. The further one delves back into history the more one is aware how the balance of values between materials and man's time has become completely reversed. Materials used to be in short supply. They were carefully husbanded, because they were difficult to win from the earth or otherwise obtain or cultivate. Some years ago when I was a practising craft metal worker, I was forcefully struck when casting wrought iron gates which my company was then manufacturing how the material to labour costs were of the order of 10 to 90 per cent., while from old company records of a century before I could see that the position then was almost entirely reversed, with labour costs of 20 per cent. against material of 80 per cent.
The increasing cost of labour compared with materials led to demands on technology to win materials more easily and
816
in larger quantities, but all too often with an increased energy input. Increasing quantities of materials desired greater production, leading to the necessity for greater sales, and thus continuing the industrial revolutionary spiral, until we arrived at the situation, not so very many months ago, when man's time, as a result of his natural wish to increase his standard of living, was the most expensive component of almost any product; and as a result any and every attempt was made to minimise this component at the inevitable expense of materials and energy. Hence arose the situation where it is cheaper in some instances to make a new bottle than to wash and re-use an existing one.
Similarly, in the packaging and retail fields it was more economic in labour to stock pre-packaged goods rather than to dispense small quantities for individual customers from bulk. It also assists stock control—for example, the exclusive use of sealed miniature bottles of spirits in many establishments, and I believe in the airlines. Similarly, in the packaging field to-day, many of our products are far more sophisticated and delicate than those of yesteryear, and expensive and complicated packaging is used to ensure the product's safe arrival, because this is far cheaper to the manufacturer than the cost of man's time in individual repairs to returned damaged units.
As it is not only impractical, impossible, but also socially undesirable to attempt to reverse this balance between labour and materials by reducing the labour costs, the Green Paper is to be applauded for its view that the course must be to stop our extravagances with materials and energy before nature, presently mostly in the persons of the organisation of oil-producing and exporting countries, make these resources so scarce and prohibitively expensive that the balance will naturally reverse again. and the Western nations may be faced with the possibility of being industrialised nations with nothing from which to produce.
It goes against the grain with many of us to throw away a perfectly good article. but here again we are pressurised into doing so in order to obtain the later and more advanced model. Although some products are shoddy and do not last, many become obsolete due entirely to

817
technological and marketing advances since the date of their manufacture. In that technology was responsible for this comparative cheapness of resources and premature obsolescence, so, therefore, I suggest to your Lordships, it must be to technology that we must look to redress the position.
There are two quite different aspects of the more efficient use of our materials, the most obvious one being the collection and re-use of waste. But—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon—far more important is the reduction of waste in the first place. Waste reduction from a cost benefit point of view is far more valuable than waste recovery, as it leads to the saving and more effective use of material rather than its re-creation later. The Green Paper gives a very good and detailed survey of what is already being achieved and where advances could be made, and to comment on each would be to trespass severely on your Lordships' time. But apart from the sorting of domestic refuse and scrap market stability, in the main it is conceded that advances must come from research and development within industry. If, as the Green Paper says, Government intend to assist in the development of reclamation activity, let them also address themselves to the encouragement of waste reduction as being even more important. And, in that the whole situation arose from reasons of cost effectiveness of labour versus materials, it is surely best to initiate work which will show the similar economic attractiveness of waste reduction and reclamation.
Governments are all too keen to behave like third rate Victorian nannies, and immediately think of the punitive measures of regulation and legislation (paragraph 4, page 29), and they forget that the cost of enforcing regulation is often more than the cost of rendering the desired result economically more attractive in its own right. With this in mind, let us hope that Government will take an enlightened view and encourage rather than penalise industry. Some of the work to be done no doubt may be of a type appropriate to Government laboratories but by far the greater proportion can and must be done in industry itself.
818
Although it may be thought, with the publishing of the Green Paper, that Government are taking the initiative, industry with their research associations have been very well ahead, and not for the first time. In this context perhaps it would be appropriate for me to give again a brief survey of current work being conducted in this field at some of the relevant laboratories. Here, with great respect, I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, in his estimate of only 50 scientists being involved, unless he is counting only those who are working in the Industrial Research Associations. As is hinted at in the Green Paper, the Glass Industries RA, in conjunction with the Glass Manufacturers Federation and the glass container manufacturers in the United Kingdom, is investigating the present utilisation of cullet, and the Research Association is looking at methods of monitoring the quality of the waste glass with a view to drawing up a specification for its economic re-use.
The non-ferrous industry is given good coverage in the Green Paper, and in the table on page 18 one can see that it has a good record of reclamation. From this table it is interesting to note that the higher recovery rates are in the most valuable materials: obviously those where the cost of the material makes it worth while to expend money on the labour to recover them. It is estimated that the non-ferrous metals industries recover over 50 per cent. of the metal, and that this is recycled. The industries' research centre, the British Non-Ferrous Metals Technical Centre, is working on furnace developments and on new methods of refining scrap which will increase the efficiency of the recovery process, and will increase still further the yield of re-usable material. At Wira they completed some years ago the well-known Pudsey experiment. It does not sound very wonderful, but it was an experiment which showed how it was perfectly possible to recycle domestic and industrial sewage and use it in wool and other textile processing. Furthermore, they are working there on projects to ensure that the type of fibre blend in recovered textiles is suitable for use in modern techniques such as open end spinning. Oddly perhaps, in coal carbonisation for coke the Research Association

819
are working on the re-use of purified liquor effluents.
In the Leather Research Association they are working on the recovery and re-use of processed chemicals not only for the value of the chrome tanning agents recovered but also from the pollution point of view. They also work on the reduction of waste by measurement and control of the various processes. The Rubber and Plastics Research Association has a paragraph to itself in the Green Paper, and they have many confidential projects in hand for the industry. The polymer industry is wide awake to business opportunities for the re-using and reprocessing of recovered material. Here they find that work on specific opportunities is far more fruitful than on broad general projects. This again reinforces the point already made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford.
At the Shirley Institute they work on projects concerned with washing processes of textiles leading to the more economical use of water and energy, as well as recovering waste. Here, as a small example, the waste from spinning processes has been shown to be recoverable for use in condenser fabrics, and the waste from the manufacture of condenser fabrics can be used for mattress fillings. I am not sure whether there is any waste from mattress fillings, but I am sure that if there were the Shirley Institute would find another use for it.
The Furniture Industries Research Association is concerned that their industry has a large number of timber off-cuts. At present this is usually pulverised and used as fuel due to the sorting difficulties, but here again work is in hand so that this at present possibly unsatisfactory use will be stopped and a more useful solution found. Other industrial research associations in the textile field are working on similar projects to those I have mentioned. In food, to take a different field, glue and gelatine manufacture is, in any case, a recycling of what is sometimes considered waste food products such as bones and hides. Here again they are working on improved efficiency processes for the conversion using enzymes instead of chemical conversion, leading to savings in fuel usage and processing time.
820
On page 22, paragraph 31, of the Green Paper, we see much made of the re-use of vending cups. It does not say so, but the main re-use of those cups is in the manufacture of heels for shoes. This was a project very largely sponsored and carried out by the Shoe and Allied Trades Research Association. There are many other examples which I could give to your Lordships. I hope that this short list, brief though it is, will encourage Government to encourage industry by increased support of such potentially valuable work, which is not a flash in the pan, or a present day band-wagon effort, but an investment which will lead to steady and regular benefit to the nation for many decades to come. Of course there are no votes in industrial research, and public expenditure in this field is always relegated much lower down the scale than the "Robin Hood" aspirations of many politicians. However socially desirable such activities may be, and they are undeniable in that each is more worthy than the last, a moment's reflection will convince one that Robin Hoods, no matter how worthy, are themselves unproductive and economically a dead loss. On the other hand, an intelligent Robin Hood, appreciating that he is simply a socially worthy parasite, will take steps to ensure the health of his host and the continuance of a supply of prosperous "Sheriffs of Nottingham" in order that he himself may remain in business.
In our present economic difficulties an intelligent appreciation and motivation is called for, and I have written to those noble Lords representing the relevant Departments in your Lordships' House assuring them that the research associations are both ready and willing to do all they can, and await the invitation to discussions promised in paragraph 2 on page 29. In addition, the research associations are instigating talks on cooperative work in this field with their EEC counterparts at the next meeting in December in Copenhagen of the Federation of European Industrial Co-operative Research Organisations, of which I have the honour to be the Secretary. The research associations are holding out a challenge to Government to match their activities in this obviously valuable field; can Government measure up to this challenge and support this work in the national interest?
4.59 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those already proffered to my noble friend Lord Darling of Hillsborough on his maiden speech. If I may say so, in the few years that I have been in your Lordships' House there have been one or two occasions when perhaps the advent of a former colleague from another place has filled me with slightly muted rapture, but so far as the noble Lord is concerned may I say that I am delighted to have him among us. I am sure other Members of your Lordships' House will appreciate that we have a new colleague who will be of the greatest assistance to us. I have never heard him speak other than good sense and always well-informed good sense. I am very happy that he has chosen, even if slightly irregularly for his maiden speech, to introduce to your Lordships this paper War on Waste because it is a subject which, in your Lordships' House, can produce persons like the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, who has just spoken, who have great knowledge to contribute to the debate.
I do not pretend to have any specialised knowledge in this matter, but during the discussions on the Control of Pollution Bill we had occasion to mention several of the subjects which are included in the White Paper, not least that of waste paper. That is one of the most important, but also relatively one of the simplest operations, which is why I would not want to spend further time on it. During those discusions I had once or twice to mention—as I often do—the state of affairs in the Principality of Wales. My noble friend Lord Darling of Hillsborough referred to the important role of the local authorities. He will appreciate that in England it is the county authorities which are the disposal authorities; not so in Wales. In Wales—I believe mistakenly—it is the district councils who are both the collection and disposal authorities. Unless a good deal of co-operation and statesmanship is shown, I am apprehensive that in Wales we may not perhaps be as succesful as we should be in dealing with this matter of waste reclamation, because the authorities concerned may be too small to operate effectively.
I was happy to receive a letter only this morning from someone who is knowledgeable in these matters about one
822
of our industrial counties, the Mid Glamorgan County Council, which have set up a Waste and Pollution Working Party under the inspiration of the county but bringing in all the districts within it. This seems to me to be satisfactory. I hope very much that other counties in the Principality will be able to have similar diplomatic success in bringing together the districts in order to work out sensible disposal schemes. If this is not done, I fear that within the Principality we shall have little reclamation. What we shall have is a policy of "dump or burn." It is so much easier to dump waste or to burn it than to sort and re-use it. Yet that is not what the Government are concerned about. We are concerned about re-use and recycling so far as it is practical or reasonably economic. But I was distressed to hear that the policy of some district councils, so far at least, is to accept that the answer to their waste disposal problems is to establish large incinerators. Apart from the fact that this can cause localised pollution, it is in many instances not the most satisfactory way of dealing with refuse. If one could be assured that where incineration seemed to be the only answer that the heat so generated was itself then adequately used, one would be less worried about simply burning rubbish.
But as our earlier discussions on the Control of Pollution Bill made us realise, we have not yet solved the problem of using the waste heat from incineration of rubbish. I believe there is a great deal of further research needed on this and possibly dissemination of knowledge from those very few experiments which have been carried out by local authorities to other local authorities who may be considering what ought to be done.
I am well aware that the Green Paper itself is not much concerned with conservation of energy and that another advisory body has been set up to deal with that subject. Nevertheless, those of us who are interested in these matters feel, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, mentioned, that conservation of energy really is one of the most important of all our current problems. I would draw the attention of my noble friend Lady Birk to this problem so that she may communicate with her Ministerial colleagues.
There is an interesting Report on Energy and the Environment which is to

823
be discussed in London to-morrow, produced by a Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. This refers to thermal pollution and to the waste of energy, particularly in relation to the generation of electricity. It points out that if power were generated in smaller units the rejected heat could be conveniently used for district heating, industrial processing and the processing of organic waste, which brings us back to our Green Paper. But it is not the job of the Central Electricity Generating Board to concern itself about the possible side uses of its waste heat. This is the matter to which I should like to draw the attention of my noble friend.
One cannot blame the nationalised industry—which is regulated by Statute in what it can do—if it does not undertake supernumerary duties outside its immediate statutory obligations. If one examines the terms of reference of the CEGB one will see that these are—and I summarise them: To develop and maintain an efficient co-ordinated and economical system of electricity supply and to take into account any effect which their proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside and on flora, fauna, features, buildings and objects of special interest. Admirable so far as it goes. But there is no obligation here to consider the effect of its operations on other possible interests. Therefore, without going into the various technicalities of it, I feel that it would be highly desirable, if the Government are in earnest about this matter of the conservation and the economical use of our physical resources, that they should look again at the terms of reference under which the CEGB works and ask the Generating Board to consider a much more positive attitude towards the use of waste heat.
I am informed that in most processes of electricity generation only about 40 per cent. goes into electricity. The rest is waste which either evaporates or goes into air or water by other means. I hope that we could look in a much more comprehensive way at resource management. We could then consider the desirability of a body like the CEGB dealing with this subject far more intelligently than it is under any obligation at present to do.
I know that there are some minor experiments such as the white fish experi-
824
ment at Hunterston—the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will know something about that—and I am told that there is some enterprise at, I think, Hinckley Point, in rearing prawns. I believe that if we could have greater research one could find ways of using this heat, not least in the treatment of organic waste which at the moment we use very unintelligently indeed. So, my Lords, I would be grateful if my noble friend would consider this point and would press her friends in the Department of Energy on it.
I was very glad that the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, brought us near to reality in this matter, because in the Green Paper there is some danger of over-simplifying the problem. I was much concerned to find on page 31, for example, that the Government apparently intend to run a major publicity campaign. I think this could do far more harm than good unless they have thought out very carefully precisely what it is that they are to ask the public to do. A number of us, I think, have received from the glass industry an extremely interesting account of a very recent experiment in the City of York in which, under the most favourable conditions possible, with the entire co-operation of the local authority and of a local glass manufacturing enterprise, they endeavoured to see what would happen if the public was asked over a period of time to collect waste glass bottles, and so forth. They found it was utterly uneconomic even though, as I say, they had the fullest possible co-operation from the public and private authorities, they had a glass factory on the spot so that their transport arrangements were minimised and they had concentrated publicity.
I think a great deal more thought and imagination will have to be given to dealing separately with these various commodities. They are not similar; they all need different ways of management to be applied to them. It would have the worst possible effect if we had general exhortation and people, with a wave of enthusiasm, started to try to do what they thought was right as good citizens, only to find that they were utterly frustrated because either the arrangements had not been thought out properly or because after a short period they were told, "We are very sorry; you have tried hard, but really this is not economic and we shall

825
have to stop". I think they would then be so much disappointed and so frustrated that this whole movement could be thwarted.
Therefore I should be happy to learn from my noble friend what the Government's second thoughts have been since some very injudicious statements were made (to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, also drew attention) in the Green Paper. I think we should also like to know just when we are to have the announcement—perhaps we can have it tonight; I hope very much my noble friend will be in a position to tell us—about the advisory body on waste treatment which it was decided to set up as long ago as last May. We are perfectly aware that there has been a General Election in the meantime, but that is now some weeks past, and if the Government are really in earnest about this campaign then the least they could have done by now, I should have supposed, would be to tell us who was to be given the duty of advising upon it.
My Lords, there are so many remarks that one would like to make about this subject—one could go into detail on various commodities—but I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time. However, I would also very strongly appeal for more attention to be given to design. I entirely agree with the point put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, that there are often good reasons for a design which appears to be prodigal of resources and unnecessarily extravagant; but I am quite certain that there are other occasions when more intelligent design at the very outset would either make the process less wasteful in itself or, if one were to design with reclamation and recycling in mind from the very beginning, would produce much more satisfactory results at the end.
On this, of course, we depend partly on industry itself, and the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, was quite right to specify the various industries which are taking a lead in this matter. But we are also dependent upon the Government laboratories and upon the universities, and I am happy to think that University College Cardiff is among those which take a lead. I bow in the direction of the Lord Chancellor, and he will understand why. There we have had for quite some time now a centre of research into the recycling
826
and reclamation of both industrial and domestic waste. A good deal is done on contract for industry, but other research will clearly need Government subvention through one channel or another. I hope also that in her speech my noble friend will be able to say something about the support that the Government propose to give to research in this field. We look forward very much to her speech, and she can be assured that there are many of us in your Lordships' House who await it with the keenest attention.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask her these questions. Is it a fact that the Central Electricity Generating Board is bound by its Statutes to generate electricity as cheaply as possible? If this is the case it absolutely precludes the use of waste heat for, for example, district heating because that can be done only at the expense of reducing the efficiency of generating electricity, although overall it is a very good use of energy and vastly more efficient if one takes the broader picture. If that is so. does she not feel that the Statutes need altering urgently?
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am delighted the noble Viscount has put it so much more clearly and emphatically than I was able to put it myself. He has taken my point entirely.
5.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, on the excellent way in which he introduced the debate on this Green Paper. In particular, I liked his way of drawing attention to the need for research, even if he understated the amount which is already going on. Also, another point he made which I thought was extremely valuable was in pointing out that many of these ways of reclamation need extremely expensive plant, and there has to be some sort of reasonable expectation of continued use of that plant if companies, or even the nation, are going to invest money in building it. I welcome, too, this Green Paper, which, even though rather too general, covers well the technical and administrative problems in the reclamation of waste. It shows the breadth of the subject. If there are any shortcomings

827
in it, I feel they lie in the human problems of putting into effect measures which are beneficial to the country as a whole. This is another aspect of one of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady White: that it is no use having wildly general compaigns for conserving and reclaiming waste if there are not proper means to deal with it and, again, if such campaigns are far too general in that they do not tell people what they need to do individually.
The waste which goes on all around us is appalling. It is not only a waste of the nation's resources: there is also the littering of the countryside. As a householder, I am struck particularly by the amount of glass which appears to be wasted—bottles and the like. The noble Baroness, Lady White, referred to some work which has been done at York, of which I am not aware; and I see from the paper to-day that the Working Party set up by the wine and spirit industry have reported against setting up a national recovery and re-use system for their bottles. I must say I am sorry about this, because one, at any rate, of the national wine and spirit chains takes back standard size wine bottles although they do not advertise the fact. Coca Cola bottles and many beer bottles can be returned, but it seems to me that a good many glass bottles could be retained and used again if only on a selective basis. So far as industry is concerned, I should have thought that almost all companies recycle their process waste or sell it to a dealer if it can be used again. Anti-pollution pressures have increased this activity and normally it is administratively simple. Advances in reclamation lie more in research as to what materials can be useful and how they can be reclaimed. Indeed there are many cases in past history of industrial waste products turning out to be valuable by-products, sometimes even more valuable than the original product. However, there are cases where waste material can be used for useful purposes but are not because they are inconvenient for administrative purposes. One cannot help feeling that much of the demand for gravel in the Home Counties is due to the great convenience of having a nearby gravel pit rather than obtaining waste products from a distance, with differing sources and possibly varying quail-
828
ties. I feel that pressure needs to be applied to get over difficulties which may be purely administrative.
There is another side of industrial use which leads to much waste in all materials other than process supplies and process waste. Many years ago, as a young man in my early twenties, I was given the job in a large factory in the North-East of finding out and taking action in relation to all forms of reclaim-able and re-usable waste materials in the factory. I had several other people to help me. There was a big construction programme going on at the time and there were already procedures for collecting and selling or re-using the main types of ferrous and non-ferrous scrap and other easily recoverable materials. In our investigation we discovered many examples of preventable waste. I do not want to bore noble Lords with them but there were some pretty curious ones among them. We found, for instance, that there was considerable disappearance of large wooden cable drums, which even in those days were priced at £10 to £12 each, and it was found that these were being used as a convenient way of starting braziers which on any construction site at that time at any rate were fairly common. Another item which I remember was the considerable loss of oxygen and acetylene cylinders. It was found that these were being covered by digging machinery when throwing up the soil into another position. Nobody appeared to be taking any notice of this! They did not realise the value of these things. When this fact was pointed out in a sensible and proper manner action was taken accordingly. I cannot help feeling that much of this kind of thing is going on now. There is much that industry can do to avoid unnecessary waste. It has always been part of good housekeeping in the factory which has a good effect all round, both moral and physical, and leads to the reduction of accidents.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, would the noble Lord permit me to intervene for a moment? I meant to mention a little item of good housekeeping that affects some of us. I have just handed in to the Post Office three-quarters of a pound of rubber bands which I have received in the last three months. I would suggest that the Post Office might do a little good housekeeping.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, I have no doubt that we all receive a large number of rubber bands. Another item which occurs to me is the large number of wire clothes hangers which one gets from the dry cleaners. I understand that they welcome those back again. On the home front I believe that there is just as much to be done, perhaps even more. I am glad to see emphasis placed on the part to be played by local authorities. Too many of them, even now, do not collect even waste paper separately. They could also more effectively advertise where householders can deposit metal and other scrap. I find quite extraordinary the extent to which metal scrap seems to be dumped around the countryside, whereas if a local authority could give instructions to people to take it to a particular place where it could be properly handled and sold, surely not only should we improve the amenities of the countryside but also recover useful scrap. If waste is to be segregated by the householder he must have containers in which to put it. This involves space, which in a block of flats may be a difficulty; but this does not mean that it should not be operated where space permits. Paper is an obvious case, but far too few local authorities are collecting even paper at present. Most householders, if asked, would be very willing to segregate their waste. The problem needs careful examination area by area, and administrative problems, difficult as they may appear even to people used to working in a particular way, should not be allowed to bar progress.
At the beginning of my speech I mentioned the human problems involved. Most of us in this country are very untidy by nature; many of us are resistant to administrative change. It is difficult enough to get people in one's own household to put refuse in the right containers even if they are labelled properly. Those of us who were in the Services during the war know how difficult it was to get people to keep the disposal of waste materials tidy, even though one had army discipline behind them. Much propaganda will be required, and people must not only be asked or told what they are to do but they must be given the reasons. I expect there is much useful experience available from what happened in the last war. If so, let us make use of it. In the infantry battalion in which I served in this country
830
many of the amenities received by the men of the battalion were paid for by the segregation and sale of swill for pigs. I do not know whether pigs do not eat swill now or whether it is regarded as too expensive to collect, but it seems to me there must be an increase in the price of normal food for pigs which would make it economic to collect swill. There must be an enormous amount of unused food going to waste which might quite well be used as foodstuffs for animals of various kinds. It will all need a well planned, carefully thought out campaign directed to specific things, coupled with what the Green Paper proposes. I believe that a great reduction of waste is possible.
5.29 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, this has been an interesting little discussion—it is not truly a debate—and I think all of us are grateful to my noble friend Lord Darling of Hillsborough for having introduced it in this Chamber. I was particularly interested in the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. Obviously from his experience he had something of great worth to say to us and consequently in passing I think it is only right that we should pay tribute to some of the valuable suggestions he made.
In looking at the Green Paper I want to recall the excellent little speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, when he made the suggestion that it might be valuable as an incentive for the Government to exempt the collection of waste from income tax if it brings funds to organisations such as scouts, boys brigades, nurses, housewives—every kind of organisation. Chapter 1, paragraph 4, of the Green Paper states:
"The Government's aim is to bring about this integration. They are examining urgently how far market forces provide sufficient encouragement for reclamation and whether new financial incentives or disincentives are needed."
There is here, as a result of the suggestion of the noble Viscount, a possibility that my noble friend Lady Birk might take up when she gives us her inimitable reply. I shall repeat the suggestion because my noble friend happened to be whispering to a colleague. The noble Viscount suggested that exemption from income tax might be a worthy objective where certain bodies are collecting waste.

831
My Lords, I was a little worried that the noble Lord. Lord Sandford, seemed a little niggling about the Green Paper. He said that there should be this and asked what was to happen to that but of course—and I shall show how fair I am—all Governments have been working like this. I have a wonderful Report produced under the Tory Government prepared on the occasion of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in 1972. It said:
"A detailed and practical interest in the quality of life we lead in our islands is central to the philosophy of this Government… We are conscious that alongside a desire for rising standards of living, there has grown up a worry that we might be destroying with one hand what we are creating with the other … that we might find we had only achieved rising material standards at the cost of producing a country about which, in terms of amenity, we were no longer enthusiastic."
That quotation comes from the right honourable Edward Heath, MBE, MP., whom I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has heard many a time. This was an excellent Report and at the end there is a summary of between fifty to seventy pamphlets, booklets and documents dealing with the problem of the environment and of waste. In fact, we have been discussing waste for a generation and never have we got down to the "nitty-gritty" of making the collection of waste work.
I do not want to quote masses of facts and figures. Noble Lords would be bored and they know them all. Nevertheless, we only have, as this document says, one world to pollute. Both Parties have their Manifestos. This is our Manifesto and on page 19 we say that we put on the Statute Book control of pollution Acts, as all Governments have, and that the Labour Government want to reverse the trend and set up a Waste Management Advisory Council. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was asking for too much detail at this stage, but I shall forgive him this time as it was clear that the weather or something had got him down a little. Accordingly, I shall add about five more minutes of my own ideas.
My Lords, having made reference to the constructive points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, I wish something could be
832
done about the Acts which are already on the Statute Book. In another place, we had a Litter Act. If some noble Lords would come with me one glorious autumn morning when the leaves are golden and still dwindling on the trees in the Manifold Valley, in Dovedale or around the Peak District, I would endeavour to escape broken-down cars, mattresses and old bedding for which nobody seems to take responsibility or to try to find out who dumped them there. Go up towards the M.l, you will find cars dumped at the side of the A.41 on the way. Nobody can tell me that enough interest is taken by local authorities or others in finding the culprits. If we are short of manpower, there ought to be some kind of recruitment of wardens. We are pretty quick to recruit wardens to ensure that cars do not stay too long in our streets or that they use meters. Perhaps there is a case at the edges of great cities and on the fringe of country areas for establishing wardens who have no other job except to scout around and point out where evil dumps are set up.
I was glad to notice that a number of noble Lords, including some who come from Welsh farming and mining areas and who are interested in both fanning and mining, have drawn attention to the work that has been done to clear away the spoil tips in the mining areas. I do not want to claim all the honour for the Labour Government; intelligent Governments of any political colour know that the quality of life in these areas is gradually being altered by the afforestation schemes and the green grass that is now growing in some of these areas. This is particularly true in 'the Potteries and Stoke-on-Trent, where parkland has been created where huge coalmine tips existed previously.
My Lords, there are some questions which we dodge. I probably ought to tread like Agag, but I shall rush in where angels fear to tread. When we are talking about the quality of life, what is the reason for today's shortages? As much as anything, the reason is the population explosion and speculation. The world is impoverished in its social factors, in its human factors and in its quality of living. Social behaviour is poor, the acquisitive society is not a success. The CBI is asking for £3

833
million to £4 million to be poured into private enterprise and it fails to acknowledge the axiom of modern production that we are socialising the losses and privatising the profits. We are now being told that one cannot run industry today without huge investment from the Government. That is what we are being asked for. I do not want to enter into this matter: I am hoping that we shall discuss multi-nationals in society and in relation to investment one day in this House, because this is one of the vital factors in the problem of lack of investment at home which is leading to some of the untidiness and lack of quality in our living. I do not know the answers to this problem and I should be a pompous fool if I pretended to. We lack a coherent doctrine to lead us through the difficult, shrinking world in which we live. For instance, nobody yet—whether or not Marxists—has disproved one of the central critiques of Marx that (and one need not be a Communist to recognise the philosophy) the acquisitive system of society, of capitalism, has within it the seeds of its own destruction. Was Marx right or wrong? Is the system working today? We have been told that it can only work pragmatically.
There is no such thing as free competition because we have set up a Common Market to regulate the amount of sugar one can obtain, to regulate the meat flow, to regulate the goods that come in. We have GATT and other trade agreements to limit the flow of goods to various parts of the world. There is no such thing as free competition in the world. The old-fashioned, excellent capitalist system of the early 19th century did a marvellous thing for mankind. It showed him how to produce but it has not taught him how to distribute. It left spoils and wastage that we, in this generation and in the next, will have to clear up in our industrial towns. Nobody has yet managed to find an answer to that. And in this feckless scramble for consumption we are bamboozled by a spree of ostentatious packaging, glossy plastic gadgetry and similar materials which spill over our hedgerows and roadsides on to the fields and kill the cows when they eat the plastic. Yet nobody seems to do much about it.
Here we have packaging neatly put down as the first point to be looked at. It is stated:
834
"The questions to be considered will include these key issues: how can packaging and containers best be designed to minimise waste."
God knows!, my Lords. Talking of packaging, I was in a café the other day and a huge plastic tomato was on the table, suffering from elephantiasis. I caught hold of this ugly damned thing and out of it squirted about two jars of tomato sauce all over the table in front of me and on to my guest sitting opposite. That is an example of our ugly, plastic, gadget-loving society—a lump of indestructibility that is ugly.
We are losing the beauty of the 18th century and some of the 19th century artistry. Man is the only animal who violates his home and hearth. Perhaps the Government could ask industry to come to some gentlemen's agreement to stop competing with each other in the matter of packaging. There is the example of any of my noble friends on either side of your Lordships' House or myself trying to open a packet of tablets when we are perhaps suffering from a headache—of course, noble Lords never get a hangover, and God help them if they do, with some of the packaging that we have to-day, because it would be to-morrow before they got at the tablets! This is a crazy world that we live in, and if there is anybody looking over the ramparts of Heaven, or shovelling coal in the other place because of a shortage of oil, and who is looking at us now, he must be wondering what is going on. It is time we put the brake on this silly, unnecessary folly of man. So the world crisis intensifies, and "growthmanship" and the violent growth of population are partly the cause of our wastemakers' society.
The only thing that is dynamic in the car industry is the dynamic inbuilt obsolescence of the car. You buy a car and it is built to be obsolete in two or three years. I think this is evil. It is a destruction of man's raw materials and precious non-ferrous and other metals. Nobody can contradict this. It is said, "If you do not do this there will be unemployment and men out of work, so you have to build cars to last for only two or three years". There is something wrong with this. We are seeking new motives for production, and in this age when we worship consumerism of that type we encourage waste. Our Budget seems to encourage HP terms because of the problem of unemployment. But our destiny is

835
in our own hands. The answer is simple, but very difficult to carry out. It is that all of us in our own lives should try to do something about this wastage. It is very elementary, so elementary that nobody will believe it, and I hope that my right honourable friend will use the schools of Britain to encourage the collection and sorting of waste. I sincerely hope that the Department of Education and Science will make it possible for our youngsters to help to put right what we have done in the past.
Technocratic man is an ugly animal. He is losing the old cement of courtesy; he is becoming surly and irritable, and now we are building fiats and living like insects in them. These high-rise fiats create more waste than anything else. Anybody who studies biology knows that animals or insects get annoyed and nasty with each other when they are put in crowded conditions. Those who, like myself, have been associated with biology and the production of drugs in laboratories know what happens to animals and insects when they are kept in overcrowded conditions; and part of man's waste-making society to-day is caused by overcrowding. This is destroying the joy of life.
In The Road to Survival, by Hoyt, which was written 20 years or more ago, he said:
"The material standard of living is pasted together with printed paper money which we go on printing in this fools' paradise of ' You've never had it so good'."
This is very true. It is time we remembered the lesson of his book. I am surprised to find that I have spoken for seventeen minutes, and I am sorry if I have bored your Lordships. However, I will finish by quoting this extract:
"Every grain of wheat and rye, every sugar beet, every egg and piece of veal, every spoonful of olive oil and glass of wine depends on an irreducible minimum of earth to produce it. The earth is not made of rubber: it cannot be stretched. The human race, and every nation, is limited in the number of acres it possesses, and as the number of human beings increases the relative amount of productive earth decreases by the amount of increase of population in that ratio."
This is the problem, irrespective of religious differences, that some day we shall have to face, because in the waste-makers' society this is one of the basic
836
problems—the pressure of mighty populations on a limited earth.
5.47 p.m.
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Darling, on his most interesting speech to-day and also thank him for raising this topic at this particular moment. I rise to-day only because I had the pleasure of supporting 'the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, on her Motion concerning the commercial re-use of waste in, I believe, March, 1970, which was a little over four years ago. I said then, and I repeat now, that we are living in a "throw away" society. People throw things away when they are bored with them—not because they are worn out or broken. Surely in this economic crisis it would be a good idea if everybody started again to be thrifty rather than concentrating all the time on "keeping up with the Joneses". This throwing away happens in town and country: and in 1970, in the debate initiated by the noble Baroness, I made a special point of talking about glass and polythene bags, both of which have been mentioned already to-day. I should like to repeat that if polythene bags are picked up in the grass by animals and eaten, the bags get round their guts and strangulate them. while if they eat pieces of glass, they suffer from haemorrhage.
Many of us spoke last time about waste paper, which local authorities will not keep separate. There was also mention of the need for much greater composting of suitable waste. I believe I was "shot down" on all those ideas on grounds of cost. Now, looking at the Green Paper from the householder's point of view, I was interested to see in Chapter 1, paragraph 6, that the public, after sorting out rubbish, can return some of these things to reclamation centres for re-use. But I am afraid that the additional tax on petrol will discourage householders from doing this themselves and they will say, "This is the job of the local authority".
Going on to Chapter 2, paragraphs 14 and 15, here I must take up the cudgels with the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough. The Green Paper says that householders are to blame for segregation of household waste not working.

837
But I think householders get discouraged when they separate their waste and see it going into these mechanical "munchers", or whatever they are called, where everything gets munched up together. Therefore they say, "What is the use of it?" I am certain if they are told the reason why, and if there is good public relations about this, householders would cooperate very willingly, if only the local authorities would use the right vehicles to cater for the different types of waste. Now the situation is probably more difficult because there are two councils, in 1970 there was only one. Who is going to throw the buck at whom? Whose responsibility is it to have the right type of vehicle and sort out the different types of waste? I do not know whether the noble Baroness will be able to help us on that point. Paragraph 18 of Chapter 2 talks of the difficulties of recycling. All this was pointed out in 1970. When the noble Baroness replies could she say whether any progress has been made?
There are industrial research organisations looking into the design of packaging which the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, told us about. Thanks to him, I had the opportunity of visiting one of these organisations. It was fascinating. They were experimenting, among other things, with polythene jars and cases. They were endeavouring to ensure that the type of accident which happened to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, would not happen again, and they did this by dropping a container from different heights to see what it would withstand with different weights in it. If a crack appeared on one side of the container they knew that something had to be done, and they went on experimenting until they got it right. I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, spoke to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, he might see for himself this process.
Although I accept that good and sometimes elaborate packaging is necessary in the interests of what is contained inside, I suggest that perhaps elaborate packaging is only necessary for export, because if goods look more attractive with extra wrappings then perhaps this sells them more easily. But I suggest it may be unnecessary for goods sold in this country, because this elaborate packaging only adds to the waste which, again, has
838
to be collected. For years voluntary organisations have been collecting waste paper and have been getting money for it. I have been collecting waste paper for a long time for a Surrey school where money is being raised for a swimming pool. There is no difficulty about getting rid of the paper or paying for it, and I hope that the Government will look into this again. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, mentioned glass and bottles and the report in to-day's papers about the spirit industry. I find that report very disappointing; but perhaps some of the research going on can put that matter right. It is strange that nobody is interested in glass because there is not enough glass to make milk bottles. Milk is now having to be put into horrible polythene containers.
I cannot end without referring once again to organic wastes because last time I spoke on this matter I referred to composting. I believe we should do more about this, because if composting were used more widely to-day it would help to rub out a little of the cost of fertilisers. In 1970 there were in the United Kingdom 9 composting plants—3 in Edinburgh, 5 in Leicestershire and the first one of all in Leatherhead. I wonder whether the noble Baroness knows if there are any more now. I understand the problem then was that they were not efficient enough for the material to be used for agricultural purposes because it was not free of certain unsuitable matter. I think this difficulty was solved in Holland a number of years ago, and I wonder whether we can learn something from them. It is only in a time of crisis that sufficient thought is given to research into difficult problems; I hope that the curse of inflation will spur the Government to get something more done.
5.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, I want to refer to three items in this Green Paper. But before doing so, and before the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, leaves his place, may I suggest that if he is still suffering from that hangover that he mentioned earlier at 5.40 p.m.—and it is possibly accounted for by the tie that he is wearing—I would not count it in the least discourteous if the noble Lord went away and took such remedy as is available!

839
On page 8 the Green Paper states:
"It is right that local authorities should take the lead in mobilising the efforts of their communities to make the most of reclamation opportunities".
That is quite right. Your Lordships will probably know that a number of local authorities have recently purchased lorries with pulverising machinery inside them. However much the housewife separates her refuse, in goes everything to the back of the lorry—waste paper, bottles, orange peel, banana skins and tins. In a few moments the whole amount is pulverised into a mess. This is not only labour-saving but it also means that the rubbish can be deposited much more compactly on the ground which the local authority uses than it could be if the rubbish was separated. The ground for dumping rubbish is difficult to obtain. Therefore I am all for the "do-it-yourself" business.
This leads me to page 10 of the Paper where it mentions waste paper. I know that this has been mentioned before—I think the noble Baroness mentioned it and I am sure my noble friend Lord Courtown did. Waste paper can be very profitable to anybody who wishes to support a charitable organisation. Many of your Lordships do so, and there are many more people outside your Lordships' House who do so. I can give one small instance of my own little village of 300 souls—and that is counting the babes in arms—where we have a church whose restoration has to be paid for. By collecting waste paper from the village we obtain between £75 and £100 a year. I suggest that the individual does more of this rather than leaving it for his county council to do so, and in doing so the individual can support some worthy object.
Lastly—and again reference has been made to this—I come to glass. Your Lordships cannot but be aware that in recent years there has been an enormous increase in non-returnable bottles. Those of your Lordships who know me very well will realise that I do not refer to bottles which contain alcoholic liquor; I am talking about the bottles that contain tonic water, ginger ale, bitter lemon and such harmless substances. This is where I want to put a question to the noble Baroness. It would be churlish of
840
me to suggest there is anything the noble Baroness does not know, but if she cannot give me the answer to-night perhaps she would drop me a line later on. What I cannot make out is why bottles with screw tops are not returnable. I was a paper-maker, not a glass-maker, but they look to me exactly the same glass as that of the old bottles which were opened with a bottle opener—and one probably grazed one's thumb in doing it. Why are those bottles not returnable and why cannot one get one's threepence back on them? It seems to me pure and simple waste. If the noble Baroness could at some time give me an answer I should be most grateful.
6.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, may I add my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, on his very capable maiden speech. I must confess to some early confusion about his existence and I wondered how to reconcile it with that of another Lord Darling I used to know, and I think I do still, and Lord Alexander of Hillsborough who used to enliven this House. But I see that the noble Lord is not either of those two persons. I noticed that one of his remarks was what might be called "of a provocative nature" in almost any circumstances I can think of except this debate. He referred to "fatuous complacency" existing here, there and everywhere. When one uses this term on one side of the House almost invariably a noble Lord on the other side, fancying that the cap was intended to fit him, rises to say that fatuous complacency does not describe him or his Party at all. This point is evidence that this subject is highly suitable for even a maiden speaker to undertake, because nobody is against anything that has been said, and hardly could be.
I came to this House as a general consumer to join in this debate for one reason and one only. On page 15 of the Paper I notice it is said:
"Extending the life of a product and designing to permit repair can also help to reduce waste and conserve resources."
Then, at the bottom of that paragraph:
"… there is a lot that could be done to make certain products last longer."
I have always been at war with what I consider to be a deadly leprosy of production; namely, planned obsolescence. It is quite obvious that other noble Lords

841
who have spoken, and spoken better than I could, are equally convinced that this is so. First, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, suggested that it was more important—and I thoroughly agree. I would say that prevention is to cure as ten is to one. This Green Paper, excellent though it is, devoted three lines to production that lasts longer and 1,500 lines to reclamation. Perhaps that was its purpose. But as I read paragraph 7 on page 15 it seems to throw out an idea, half take it away again, and then refer to it as something that may be considered at any old time. I join with other noble Lords in asking the Minister whether it is not the policy of the Government to oppose this obnoxious theme of planned obsolescence, which goes right through our metallic works, engines in particular.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, who selected the motor as an outstanding and glaring example. It is indeed. In my family we carry out our own repairs. I try to run machines for ten years. It is difficult to run an average small motor car for ten years. I have other machines which last a tremendous time—an Aga cooker for instance. We had one for 25 years; others have them longer. My best machine pumps water to our house every day, all day and all night, and has hardly ever stopped. Incidentally, it uses no fuel and no lubricant and was installed in 1912. I can still obtain replacements for it from the admirable makers, Blakes of Accrington. That is the kind of service that should be aimed at. Surely some Queen's award should go to the maker of a machine that is still operating although it started in the time of her great grandfather. That is the kind of thing we should aim at, rather than at products that last no time at all and for which, after a few years, spares are not available.
I am thinking of other examples. My son has just returned from tramping the earth with a rucksack. He noticed in Montevideo British Leyland buses manufactured in 1930. They keep going because that is a Latin country, and a Latin country is never defeated in making spares. He went on in his travels to Darjeeling and there saw a steam engine drawing its trucks up a mountain side, belching sparks and smoke in the good
842
old-fashioned way. It was a Krupp manufacture of 1911. I do not want to labour this matter because almost every speaker has laid greater or less stress upon it, but I associate myself with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in what they said on this subject.
I have two other observations which arise from what others have said. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, spoke of food. I put a different point of view. Food shortages are not the phenomena that have troubled us in the West in my lifetime, but food surpluses. We are always having a mountain of something. We have had a beef mountain and a butter mountain, and in the 1930s there were cotton mountains and fish mountains, cocoa mountains, bean mountains and this, that and the other. It is a surplus of food and raw materials which has bothered us, not a shortage. I do not think on the aggregate there is a shortage, or a foreseeable shortage. But what worries me, and what I would hope might come to the consideration of nations at a higher level, is how to cope with the surpluses without destroying them. Is there no means at all of making a freeze bank in which these surpluses can be put—as my wife and I say when we discuss these things, like Joseph advising a Pharaoh in Egypt how to prepare for seven lean years by husbanding the resources of seven years of surplus? Is there no means whatever whereby these things can be stored in some way, if not for our own consumption, at least for the millions who are undernourished—75 million (shall we say?) in Bangladesh—and there are similar situations all over the place. The difficulty is one of distribution, and I refer to the matter because the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, raised it.
There is one last item I should like to mention because it touches something I have felt about and intended to say, and is a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. It is that it is almost a waste of the human spirit to live in a high rise flat. I will end by telling your Lordships a story. I used to run the junior section of a working boys' club in Bermondsey. One day I was rash enough to say to one of the boys, who was about 12, "Are you looking forward to this slum clearance programme and the putting up of fine new

843
flats?" He looked at me and said, "If you mean the house I live in, with a front door and a back door, and a mud patch at the back, and a hen that sometimes lays an egg, and slates that come off the roof but we have a tin bath that catches the drips, I prefer to be where I am. I wouldn't like to live in any of those fiats that I have ever been in." He said, "Captain Millbanks, we don't call these slums. We much prefer them." I had not intended to be insulting but that, I think, is a point.
As a farmer concerned with food production I do not know what to say because, as you put up bungalows, cottages, and terrace houses instead of flats you occupy land where food could be produced. I do not know what the answer is, but I think that priority should go to the spirit of man. If these high dwellings are a waste of the spirit of man then they, like some of the conveyor belt operations, should be brought to an end by the co-operation of the nations at a higher level, because without concerted action we are defeated by competition.
My Lords, I have contributed a scrappy speech but it is often my task to come at the end of a debate when everybody has said everything that I wanted to say. However, I hope I have done my bit by underlining the excellent tilings that others have said.
6.12 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, the House will indeed be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, for bringing, in his maiden speech, this important Green Paper before your Lordships at an early stage in this Parliament. I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on her new appointment and responsibilities at the Department of the Environment.
My Lords, I owe my participation in this debate to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, because it was her suggestion that I should join her in doing some original research into this subject during the winter of 1969. Also I took part with her in the debate referred to by several earlier speakers in March, 1970. Your Lordships will recollect that this was prior to Stockholm. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, waved Stockholm
844
at us and we fully appreciate that the discussions there have a very important bearing upon the thinking of the present Government in this White Paper. But, my Lords, the particular subjects to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention are ones that are not specifically mentioned. Certainly one is not specifically mentioned in this White Paper, and that is water.
In our debate in March, 1970, some of us, including myself, laid special emphasis on the need for the recycling of water and its very close relationship to the reclamation of waste land, or the use of land for reservoirs. I should like wholeheartedly to support my noble friend Lord Sandford in what he said about the Green Paper as a whole. He drew our attention to various paragraphs, but in this context I should like to draw your Lordships' attention once again to land reclamation, a subject with which the present Government are well acquainted, in Chapter 3, paragraph 24. There is a very close connection between the two and I should like to urge the noble Baroness, if I may-do so politely, once again to look at the problem of our water resources. I personally believe that a very great deal of land is being wasted. It is going under water as reservoirs—either planned, or in the course of construction, or to be planned in the next half century. It is a source of great anxiety to large numbers of amenity societies throughout the United Kingdom that such reservoirs should be planned. And, my Lords, there is a remedy.
I have had experience, as many others of your Lordships have had, in taking part in Select Committees on specific reservoir projects, and what has struck me on many occasions, either as a result of reading the papers of other bodies or being concerned with a specific project myself in the case of Calderdale, is the fact that so far as Government policy is concerned industry may use as much water as it likes. It is an ad lib policy. I drew your Lordships' attention to this in our debate in 1970. So far as I can see, there is not one word in this White Paper which refers to our second natural resource of water and relates it to our first natural resource of land. Certainly it does not occur in Chapter 3 to which I have already referred.

845
My Lords, if I may develop this theme a little further and venture into certain territory (I do not expect the noble Baroness to reply to these points, but I should like her to bear them in mind in the course of her discussions with the Department) there is a very important matter which is closely connected with our water resources. It is the desalination programme. In his previous office, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, had a specific interest in this programme, and it is my personal regret to-day that he has not been able to take part in this debate and mention this subject, because when he was at the Department he took a special interest in the pilot project in East Anglia. The desalination programme is a long and sad story because, unfortunately, due to expert advice, the wrong process was chosen. It was uneconomic. Unfortunately, the desalination programme now enjoys a very low category of priority, whereas, had the other process been chosen, it might well be providing another arm to a very valuable natural resource. What was intended at one time was that the generation of atomic power should be closely linked and closely associated with the desalination programme. Instead of this, so far as I know at the present moment, there is no direct link.
My Lords, I should like to venture a little further into the sea and mention once more a second natural resource which is not specifically mentioned. I do not make a complaint or a point about this, because in the chapter referring to a schedule of resources it says specifically that it is not exhaustive. I accept that entirely. Seaweed is a natural resource which surrounds our island, and once again I draw your Lordships' attention to its presence as a free natural resource which is available as a useful fertiliser. I referred to this last week in your Lordships' House in the debate on agriculture. I am wondering whether we can take this a stage further and mention in this connection the Marine Biological Institute at Plymouth which has a very great deal of specific and highly specialised knowledge on the role of seaweed in sea life. Your Lordships will be aware with dismay that the Soviet proposals for expanding their fishing fleet and employing what is commonly termed the Hoover technique of fishing out large areas of the Atlantic and other parts of the seas and oceans of the
846
world, includes the deprivation of this natural resource. To the Marine Biological Institute we can look, surely, to examine the case for the further possibility of the seaweed which surrounds our coasts as a useful natural resource.
My Lords, once again there is no specific mention of the reclaiming of land from the sea. As one of those who participated on several occasions in debates on the third London airport, I feel that this is an omission which could, perhaps, be remedied. One of the more exciting elements in that programme was the reclaiming of a large area of the East coast from the North Sea. Your Lordships will also be aware that there are areas where, due to tides and currents surrounding these islands, there is a degree of coastal erosion taking place which is not being specifically safeguarded by either a reclamation programme or a programme of revetting our seashore. Curiously enough, it was in the last century that a great interest was shown in Parliament on this matter, and at a time when a large number of the lighthouses were constructed great interest was shown in connection with our penal programme. I am wondering whether, once again, there may be a link between these two and that as part of the Home Office programme the Prison Service might investigate the possibility of reclamation of the coastline. This is a long shot, but I put these ideas forward because we are attempting to examine the war on waste and surely our first consideration should be the wastage of the coast of our islands.
I was much encouraged, as I am sure were many of your Lordships, in the closing sentences of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, referring to the evils of technocratic man. I felt it was a cry from the heart when he referred to population pressure on a limited earth. We have much to learn from other countries, especially from Holland whose knowledge of the North Sea and the reclamation of land from the maw of the sea is of special value to us. I am just wondering whether in the European programme there may be a possibility of joining hands in cooperating in ventures which would be of mutual benefit to those countries.
I do not wish to speak for long on this subject towards the end of a long

847
debate, and I have not given specific notice to the noble Baroness for which I apologise, so naturally I do not expect her to reply to the points I am making. But I return to what my noble friend Lord Sandford said in his opening remarks. This Green Paper has been put together hastily. That such haste has been combined with a fragmentary examination of the subject is a pity, because the debate which the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, instituted in March, 1970, attempted to cover a much wider field of the subject as a whole.
At that time we felt there was a real possibility that the reclamation of waste paper would be looked upon as a matter of urgency, and it was in this connection that the noble Baroness and I traced a journey of waste paper from your Lordships' House and another place to its recycling further down the Thames. For that reason I was most interested to listen to the speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, in connection with the problems arising from waste and the ullage from paper mills. I say that because when the noble Baroness and I visited the Thames Board Mills we discovered that at that time—and this may be true to-day—a large quantity of paper from Europe, particularly from Holland, was being imported, for which we paid valuable foreign exchange. In order to meet the requirements of the Board Mills we were using valuable currency which could quite easily have been saved by a re-use of our own waste paper in this country.
I should here say—and I think it is only fair to say it—that the City of Westminster has a special responsibility for Parliament and this it carries out to the full. It is something that we can be proud of that paper from this House, of which we generate enormous quantities, eventually becomes containers and other useful objects. Perhaps there is a message here!
6.25 p.m.
LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness and the House will forgive me for not putting my name down on the list, but I did not think that I should be able to be present. However, I should like to leave with the noble Baroness one or two thoughts to
848
which she obviously cannot reply at such short notice. The main thought that I wish to put over is this. One can have as much reclamation as one is prepared to pay for. For example, power stations operate at about 30 per cent. efficiency. If you use district heating this figure can rise to 70 per cent., but the costs are obviously higher. Equally, you can have reclamation of paper if you are prepared to give grants. I appreciate that this is a question not for the Department of the Environment but for the Department of Trade and Industry, and, that therefore the noble Baroness will not be able to reply, but again it is something for which one pays.
I should like to suggest that we could get a very high reclamation of paper, especially of computer paper, which is shredded and therefore makes a vast bulk and is destroyed. But it could be re-compacted by baling in the same way as various other forms of waste paper, and then sold relatively cheaply. I suggest that the Department of Trade and Industry should look at the question of giving grants for companies installing baling equipment. The same applies in the case of other items, although the position is somewhat more complicated; for example, the recovery of toxic matter, whether it be metals or other material. On a straight basis of recovery they are not economic, but if a grant were given for the installation of the appropriate equipment they might be economic. I hope that the House will forgive me for this late intervention, but I should like to leave that thought with the noble Baroness.
6.27 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS BIRK): My Lords, may I first say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, for initiating this debate and I also congratulate him on a rare double. In his opening speech he gave such clear proof of his past and present credentials in the field of recycling and reclamation of materials, that I certainly cannot hope to match his undoubted knowledge of the reclamation industry, nor, may I hastily add, that of almost everybody else who has spoken. We have had an extremely expert discussion, even if it has not been

849
an actual debate. As this is my first real baptism of fire as a Government spokesman on environmental matters—and I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for their kind remarks—it would not be an exaggeration for me to say that I really feel up to the neck in waste at the moment! In my verbal output I will try to take as my text, "Waste not, want not". But I fear that so many important points have been raised by noble Lords that I must ask your Lordships to bear with me while I try, however inadequately, to deal with as many of them as I can. Those with which I am unable to deal, either due to lack of time or lack of knowledge, I will reply to in writing.
Yesterday's Budget must surely have concentrated our thinking most wondrously. When my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke about waste he was making a specific point about energy and also expressing an attitude of mind, and I thought it extremely interesting that on the front page of one of the editions of the Evening Standard last night the paragraph regarding energy was headlined, "War on waste". Therefore, I think his arguments and the debate together could not come at a more pertinent time.
The Green Paper is intended to give an indication of the Government's thinking on the issue of reclamation. The document was published as a Green Paper as a practical basis to demonstrate the value which the Government place on a dialogue with interested organisations, experts and ordinary individuals. It is true that we are having this debate at an early stage in the life of the Green Paper, which means that although the main Government Departments concerned have drawn it to the attention of many of the trade and professional associations and local authorities, few have had time to comment. Therefore, unfortunately, I cannot today give some of the reactions which would have been extremely interesting. However, there is great merit in having it at this early stage, because this debate, taking place in a consultative body of such very high quality as this—your Lordships' House—must make an extremely important contribution to the national debate. Possibly it has helped to move it forward to an earlier stage, to help clarify many of the issues and to
850
act as encouragement to many others to study other things, because the views expressed here will trigger off a great many views from people who either agree or disagree. Therefore, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, who followed him, not unnaturally, along the same path, that the document has done its job very well. If they had both stood up and said, "Yes, we agree with every word in it; there is nothing more to say about it", this Green Paper would not have been a discussion document. So I feel that we have support from those two noble Lords, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who took the major part in that partnership. There were a great many ideas and comments of great interest. And it cannot be true, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek said, that his contribution was due to his indisposition to-day. His contribution was provocative and interesting, and extremely valuable, because he brought out a great number of points which needed to be brought out.
My Lords, all the issues which have come out in to-day's debate have extended over a wide sphere. Although I have strong feelings on high-rise flats and the waste of the spirit of the community, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not comment on these as they fall outside the Green Paper. My noble friend Lord Davies of Leek did not disappoint me, because he managed to bring in the Common Market as well, but I shall not comment on that.
One of the questions that we do not need to ask is, "Why do we need a reclamation policy?" I was personally delighted that there was such a consensus of opinion agreeing with my own thinking, that the sheer appearance of parts of our environment is a certain recipe for making eyes sore. The pollution that is man-made is something with which we should refuse to live. The health hazards of unrecovered waste are far-reaching and quite unacceptable. In fact, the whole moral, social and aesthetic reasons for protecting our country from the ravages of waste make the ecological case as important as the economic one in treating the war on waste as a high priority. On any basis one wants to take, we simply cannot afford to ignore this fact. We cannot afford to let our children grow up

851
accustomed to a polluted, ugly, grotesquely wasteful society. We cannot afford to multilate our countryside for more raw materials while we are gradually suffocated by an endless flow of waste, neither used nor properly disposed of.
My Lords, here I would take note of the point made by my noble friend Lady White on the difference between the collection and the disposal of waste in Wales and in this country, and the effect that that will have in practical terms. It struck me as ironic, also, that the Press, who, to their credit, have used reams of paper to emphasise this tremendous problem in both newspapers and magazines, find that much of it will eventually add to the piles of paper which are literally wasted.
I find it not surprising that women figure prominently among those who have written to the Government urging the development of a national policy on the reclamation and recycling of waste. Many of the points put forward on behalf of housewives were made most eloquently by my noble friend Lady White, and also by the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster. The National Federation of Women's Institutes, the National Association of Women's Clubs, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is Secretary, the WRVS and the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs in Great Britain and Northern Ireland have all passed resolutions at their annual conferences this year urging Government action in this sphere. The National Council of Women recently published a report, Recycling for Survival.
As a housewife, I understand this concern. It is not just a social or an economic matter which we can look at and appreciate, and want to do something about. It is a matter which becomes extremely personal. I am fortunate enough to have a waste disposal unit in my sink. The only trouble is that it will not "munch up" all the things I want to put into it. so it tends to go wrong. Still, my Lords, this is one of the ways in which part of the domestic waste can be dealt with. I am delighted to know that some council flats and houses are having these units installed.
852
We must remind ourselves of what I like to call "conceptual friction", the friction which works between the recognition of the finite limits to some of our natural resources—and there are limits—the need to conserve (mentioned by several noble Lords) and the expendable luxuries in this throw-away society. As the Prime Minister said on Monday, it lies within our power to save hundreds of millions of pounds on the nation's import bill, and to contribute to the environment in doing so. Without going into further detail, I think that covers to some extent the point made, quite rightly, by my noble friend Lord Darling of Hillsborough.
However, the Green Paper is an attempt to clarify all these issues in relation to the handling of waste. Its aims can be generally described as descriptive, analytical, prescriptive and the mobilisation effort. We have described what is already being done, and in sufficient detail to show how much reclamation already takes place. Noble Lords who have spoken are so much at home with the Green Paper that I will not go over it again in any detail. The total turnover of the reclamation industry already amounts to several hundred million pounds. In our analysis, we have identified urgent reasons for further effort, and areas for activity. The Green Paper goes on to prescribe suggestions for future policies and explains the machinery established at central Government level to give assistance and guidance. This centres inevitably on the proposed Waste Management Advisory Council.
Although, because it has not yet been finalised, I am afraid that I am unable to give the names of the members of the Council which my noble friend Lady White and other noble Lords asked me to give. I can say that this matter is under discussion almost at this moment. It is hoped that the first meeting will take place before the end of the year. The Council will consist of leading representatives of industry, local authorities, the academic world and conservation interests. A great many of the points raised to-day will be part of the constant working brief of the Council. There have already been attempts to mobilise further effort by locally structured schemes. We want to see that effort maintained. It is effort—
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Baroness before she leaves the question of the Waste Management Advisory Council, I asked her a question on the Council and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, also indicated an interest in it. If avoidance and reduction of waste is the first and the most important step, does this fall within the terms of reference of the Council, or does it not?
BARONESS BIRK: Yes, my Lords, as I understand it, it certainly does. The terms of reference of the Council as set out in the Green Paper are very wide. I am very glad that the noble Lord interrupted me at that point, because I forgot to mention that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and I think also by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, regarding financial incentives is covered in the remit of the Council. It is concerned with administrative and economic affairs as well. So it really should be the body which takes initiatives and acts as a watchdog. It has an extremely wide and open brief which I think is the kind of brief it should have. However, if the effort at local level is to have any success it must involve local industry, local government and local will, which means local people both individually and collectively working in a voluntary capacity. This is something to which I should like to return.
First, I should emphasise that the Green Paper acknowledges industry's already considerable efforts and achievements in the reclamation field. These involve primary producers and processers, who take great pains to conserve raw materials. I happen to know, as possibly do other noble Lords, that both the Thames Board Mills and Maybank will man baling press machinery while local authority staff are being trained, and the Thames Board Mills has a team which goes to local authorities to set up the operation. This is really just the beginning of what might be a greater partnership between industry and local authority, which would help local authority with the very severe financial strictures which are upon it at the present time.
The secondary industries, such as scrap merchants and chemical recovery firms,
854
naturally make as good a job as they can as their livelihoods depend upon reclamation and recycling. Three recent Reports of Working Parties on glass, plastic, metal packaging and containers, set up by the relevant industries, have been invaluable as basic studies and all credit to those industries concerned. Although I by no means have the answer to everything which the noble Viscount, Lord Monck, was kind enough to say—I think I will have to write to him about the glass bottle problem, which fills me with complete amazement and is a question that I keep on asking—I will mention briefly something which has been raised in different ways by very many noble Lords. It fits into this very large problem of techniques which involve either mechanical stress or strain and applies to the bottles to which he referred. It is unfortunate that many of the techniques required, the transport and the sheer cost of reclaiming these materials, is greater than the cost of disposing of them, or of leaving them just as they are in a heap or as litter. This is one of the very great problems which will require all the ingenuity of industry—to which I think the noble Ear, Lord Courtown, referred, as also did the noble Earl, Lord Shannon—and require also tremendously close partnership between everybody involved.
I ought to mention here industry's initiative in putting forward a proposal for a Waste Exchange Market, which we welcome in the Green Paper. Action has followed on this matter, and the Department of Industry is funding the concept of a United Kingdom Waste Materials Exchange, which is a better title for it because it is not really a market. This will be experimental for two years at a cost of £70.000 and will be free to participants. This is a very positive example of the Government giving not only a lead but finance to a worthwhile project.
So far so good, my Lords. But industry still needs further to explore the degree to which reclaimed raw materials can be used within existing processes, and this could mean changing the nature of its manufacturing processes—I think I am right in saying that the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, spoke about this—to make more use of waste products; the development of increasingly sophisticated

855
recovery techniques and, also, the modification of product design to make reclamation viable. On this matter I so agree with my noble friend Lady White that all these things have to be started at source if we are to obtain any real results, so that we design the kind of thing which can either go on being used or if it has to be replaced can be recycled with the greatest ease. This is imperative.
It is also imperative that industry recognises—and it is beginning to do so in certain areas, without a doubt—the need to co-operate with the relevant local authority. There is really no doubt that the greatest potential for extending reclamation of materials for re-use lies with waste collection by local authorities. This does not mean that they should, or that they can, rush blindly into collection schemes. There is no point in trying to evade or overlook the question of finance, the question of priorities, the tremendous degree to which local authorities are stretched in their expenditure. Since the Budget yesterday brought a cut in public expenditure, which I am afraid was quite inevitable, the problem will be even greater.
I would say to all noble Lords who have criticised the Green Paper as being either rather waffling or not precise enough that it is easy to be precise when one can allocate large funds to a service but it is very much more difficult when one is trying to co-ordinate various ideas to try to encourage and persuade industry, individuals, local authorities, voluntary bodies, to work together. We cannot afford as a living society to let waste continue. We are really saying—let me be quite honest—that reclamation has to be done by people on ingenuity and on a financial shoestring for the time being so far as Government and local authority funds are concerned.
There are, of course, areas of activity in which local government can make short-term achievements without great expense. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, will appreciate that when he considers his remarks on local authorities in this context. Also when it comes to the question of salvaging, to which he also referred, local authorities have developed their refuse services as a service of public health for the nation; although in harsher times
856
more salvaging was undertaken, we must consider whether the wasteful habits of to-day can be reversed. I agree with him about that point. I urge the recognition that collection and disposal must have a priority in terms of public health, but that, nevertheless, the standards of reclamation and disposal must be raised. There is this very important public health element which often raises costs and slows down the activity.
When we come to the question of our voluntary efforts, society has always benefited from voluntary help, and I hope to see this continue in almost every field possible. I think that we have to-day more voluntary help than we ever had available, and particularly among the young; we also have far greater resources of voluntary manpower and womanpower. But I agree with all those noble Lords who have said that we cannot really expect householders to be asked to separate their refuse and then when the collection van comes round, if it does (and it does not always), see it all flung in together and jumbled up. There is nothing more irritating. As a busy housewife, there is nothing more time wasting—and here this is a waste of time as well as everything else—than to see this happen. I can promise personally to make sure that certainly my male colleagues are prodded about this constantly.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, who was asking the question about voluntary auxiliaries helping local authorities. First of all, not only is it right, but we cannot afford anything else. On the other hand, it is also true to say that the voluntary organisations—once having said that they are not always treated as well as they should be in this field—must also prove their own reliability, otherwise the whole thing falls down. If you get a spurt of interest and then everybody loses heart the rubbish piles up and nothing happens to it at all. That, together with the co-operation needed from individuals, trade unions, and from almost any group of people one can mention, illustrates the critical interdependence of working groups in the community, and the crucial importance of realistic analysis which weighs up the various viable alternatives.
The role of central Government must be to provide a deeper understanding of

857
reclamation opportunities, and also to encourage all those concerned to organise themselves and make the most use of reclamation, and to develop appropriate policies to promote the right methods. This will, in due course, be channelled through the proposed Waste Management Advisory Council, which is under Ministerial chairmanship.
Central Government has already taken some further initiatives. There has been constant and effective liaison between Departments, which has been appreciated by your Lordships, in looking at the particular issues involved. The Government are expanding their own programme of research and development—and I think this was a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon—particularly with the sponsorship of the waste recovery service at Warren Springs laboratory. I am sure the noble Earl knows about this, but I should be happy to write to any other noble Lord, as I do not think I can take the time to go into the detail of this extremely interesting pioneer effort.
The agents for action are available and the climate is right for a war on waste. What we have to look at is the wasteful nature, as has been pointed out, of some of our own activities and habits. There are of course great advantages in our present technological developments. Although many of us try to escape to a greater sort of simplicity of life, I do not see it as a practical possibility to be able to turn the clock technologically back. There are people who are living in communes and family groups who are trying to effect a do-it-yourself society, but this is quite impossible on any large scale. Nevertheless, there are things, if we take them seriously enough, that we could learn to do without. We can also do more for ourselves, where we keep the basic utensils, like making our own jams.
Many of your Lordships have pointed out, and I agree, that the Green Paper does not emphasise perhaps sufficiently the possibilities of improving production standards and changing product design and packaging. It is not that they have been overlooked, but they are to be considered in due course by the Waste Management Advisory Council. We do not want to throw out the article with the packaging, because many goods need its protection, and much of the packaging in which goods are contained has been
858
the result of recycling. Nevertheless, I should have liked to see in some areas what I would call two tiers of goods. For instance, in regard to cosmetics, if I buy something for myself, it takes me a good deal of time to get into the packaging in order to get the article out.
Here there is an awful waste of paper, cardboard, plastic. I do not usually want to pay the extra price which, to some extent, this operation must involve. However, if I wish to give such things as presents, then I am prepared to pay a little more for the pretty packaging that becomes part of the gift. An early priority of the Waste Management Advisory Council—and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, will be pleased about this—will be the establishment of a study group on packaging and containers. As I have made clear, this will be a study close to my own heart.
Finally, it is imperative that each one of us makes a positive contribution to this war on waste. There are different ways in which we can do it: by co-operating in any local schemes, by being economical in the use of our materials and packaging, and by not consigning returnable containers to the dustbin. In spite of all the comments about those products that are not taken back for reclamation, it is really quite horrendous that a survey in 1972 on litter commissioned by the Glass Manufacturers Federation—I think that the noble Viscount will be interested in this—showed that in 53 locations of all the glass containers left as litter, 27·5 per cent. were milk bottles. In another survey of which I have heard, it was discovered that a significant percentage of discarded bottles were in fact those on which deposits had been paid. Therefore, there really is a great deal that even the individual who is concerned only with his own particular purse can do.
With my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek, I am a great believer in education wherever you can use it, both for the young and for adults. In this area I personally believe that where local education authorities take an interest in waste it is not only immensely helpful but is laying a firm foundation for the future. This is why I was very pleased to learn of a recent environmental education project at a school in Buxton which was

859
organised by the local regional office of the Keep Britain Tidy group in conjunction with industry and others. In this project, the students of a school, together with parents, friends and neighbours, collected non-returnable clear glass containers over a four-week period to go to a co-operative glass works at Worksop. Over 42,000 containers were collected, and the campaign also unearthed a further 4,000 drip feed bottles from a Manchester hospital. This shows what can be done when there is a will.
It is also encouraging that reclamation and recycling are included in various examination syllabuses, such as the GCE in general studies. This is certainly one way of changing the social habits of future generations. From my past duties as chairman of the Health Education Council, I am also a great believer, if you can do it in the right way, of attempting to educate adults as well. I do not think that any of us are beyond that. We must accept that we will not implement a policy of reclamation overnight. We must accept that there will always be some waste, but what we have to avoid is wasteful waste, and ugly waste.
We will not change the habits of the nation at a stroke; we will not change the production capacity of the paper industry to absorb all the waste paper we could collect and to re-use at a stroke, and even if we built a mountain of empty glass containers we certainly could not order the economic re-use of the mountain of glass at a stroke. But we can try to do the various things which I and other noble Lords have mentioned. We can try to educate and persuade by the clever use of publicity. Here I entirely agree with my noble friend Lady White that it is extremely important how you use publicity, where you use it and for what purpose. I can assure her that, certainly to the best of my ability, I will stress the necessity of precision at every juncture. Otherwise a further pile of waste paper material will be filling waste paper baskets all over the country.
We have to avoid the wasteful consumption of petrol by cars. At the moment, it looks as though the increase in price will do a particularly good job in that respect, but there are also some steps that we can take to eliminate waste
860
through some personal saving in expend-diture. It is amazing how unaware many of us are that we make things more expensive for ourselves by our own personal choices. A change in attitudes is a long-term process, but it can flow at the beginning only from a discussion of the problems. The debate to-day has certainly started that discussion in your Lordships' House and in Parliament. Let the debate continue until the stage of action is reached.
THE EARL OF SHANNON: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, as she mentioned the matter of Warren Spring, would she concede that the best results are likely to emanate from industry, and that this is where the support should be given and not necessarily to Government laboratories? I tried to stress this point. If she would concede that this is where the best results will lie it will probably stop this experiment being called "God's or the Government's gift to Warren Spring".
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, what I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to argue was the whole concept of partnership. Of course we depend on industry for this and one hopes industry will take an even greater lead. To refer to the Warren Spring experiment is not to take a crack at industry. It is merely giving an example of what can be done and what further should be done. I agree that the bigger the lead and the more industry does the more pleased the Government will be.
7.3 p.m.
LORD DARLING OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to thank those noble Lords who have commented so favourably—I do not know whether I have deserved it—on my introducing this debate. I have listened carefully to all but one of the speeches. They have ben very interesting. I may frighten noble Lords by saying that they prompt me to make another speech of about three-quarters of an hour in length, but I am going to practice self-denial because there will be further opportunities to examine the subject.
I thoroughly agree with some of the speeches which have been made; I profoundly disagree with some of the observations, including the last one made by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. I am not altogether in agreement with some

861
of the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I should certainly like an opportunity of replying to the Opposition Front Bench speakers, but I will not pursue that now. I will practice self-denial and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.