Lords Sitting of 21 November 1985

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

European Airlines: Competition
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to their Answer on 24th October (col. 1297) concerning the European Commission and European airlines, whether they will make a statement on the decisions reached and recommendations made at the meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers held on 14th November.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, no decisions on air transport were taken at the council on 14th November. May I refer the noble Baroness to my Answer to her Question on 24th October, when I said that, with the Dutch and British presidencies following the Luxembourg presidency, we saw the council on 14th November as the real start of the battle. Failing this, the full rigour of the competition rules would have to be applied in practice as well as in principle.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I appreciate the frankness of the Minister's reply, the total content of which I imagine would be unacceptable to both of us. May I ask him whether the patience of the Council of Transport Ministers has now become exhausted and whether the Commission has stated that it will now refer the whole matter to the European Court of Justice? If that is correct, could he say when the Commission proposes to take action?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness and sympathise with her. No one is keener to take action on this matter than we are. The situation at present is not acceptable. The patience, I think, will run out at the end of next year if no agreement has been reached by the time we have ceased our term of presidency; but let us hope that we can make progress during the next year, because that is by far the best way to proceed rather than by taking the matter to the European Court of Justice.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, could the Minister give the House any information about future meetings of the Council of Transport Ministers; and may I ask him, in case I heard him incorrectly, whether he said that the Commission was prepared to wait until the end of next year before doing anything?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords; I think that, with regard to the last point, the noble Baroness
654
misinterpreted what I said. We want to take action immediately, but if no concrete action has been taken and no progress has been made by the end of next year then we shall have to consider other means of taking action, such as going to the European Court of Justice. With regard to future council meetings, we understand that the Dutch are planning an informal meeting on 9th January followed by formal meetings on 27th March, 5th May and possibly 19th June.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does the noble Earl the Minister understand that the latter part of that reply is totally acceptable and that we shall all look forward to hearing what transpires on January 9th?
Lord Underhill: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he will bear in mind the supplementary question which I put on 24th October, asking that the Ministers will keep in mind the need for a proper balance between competition and co-ordination? In his reply the Minister referred to the question of safety only, but the question of co-ordination and competition being balanced is a very important one.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord has absolutely the right point. That is why it is better to do this thing through the council rather than by going through the courts.

Motorcycles: Control of Noise
3.10 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures have been taken by the Government to enforce control of noise from motorcycles.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, day-to-day enforcement is of course a matter for the police. Noise limits on new motorcycles have applied from 1970 and were most recently tightened in 1983. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport introduced regulations last year which require replacement silencers for motorcycles first registered from the start of this year to be marked to show compliance with a British standard.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that Answer. There appear to be sufficient legal restraints. Is he convinced that these are enforced sufficiently rigorously to dissuade offenders? Could he recommend the setting up of noise control points similar to those employed for controlling speed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, enforcement of noise on motorcycles is a matter for the police and, among all their other duties, I think that they undertake this one very well. With regard to noise meters similar to other items, it is very difficult to track the noise of a motorcycle properly, given all the other traffic and noise that is going on around. This has

655
proved to be a difficulty that the police have found. We are looking into various ways in which enforcement can be strengthened and improved.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that police duty is very difficult? Could he tell us whether there has been a single prosecution in the last 12 months for any motorcycle which is making too much noise? If so, I should like to hear the details that have been publicised.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know the figures for the last 12 months, but the most recent figure that I have is that 2,800 prosecutions took place in 1983.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a large number of motorcyclists would encourage any legislation to decrease the noise for they are fed up with the antics of one or two "cowboys" who spoil the whole name of motorcycling? Would not a most effective measure be for the police to have powers to stop and impound motorcycles, and then release them when they are proved roadworthy so far as sound is concerned?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that noise can be a nuisance. With regard to the extra work that he would like the police to undertake on this matter, I should like to discuss that with my noble friends in the Home Office.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Earl recognise that it is not really solely a matter for the police? While prosecutions must be brought by the police the collection of evidence could be delegated in the first place to a number of voluntary organisations, who would simply stand by the road and say, "That sounds a bit loud"—then take the number of the vehicle concerned and send it to the police, who would then contact the alleged offender and prosecute.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can see difficulties in going down that route.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Sub-Committee G of the Select Committee for EC Commission directives recently considered a proposal on this subject, that it is quite a major cause of nuisance not only in this country but throughout Europe, and that it really does depend for checking entirely on enforcement? There is no other way. Would my noble friend ask his department to look at this matter seriously, with a view to the police setting up check-points with adequate noise meters—this is the only way—which will really catch more of the worst offenders?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the subcommittee's report in May was very useful and we are very grateful for all the work that was done by noble Lords on that. With regard to the suggested check-points, I am absolutely in agreement, but we must first of all devise a system which will be effective to entrap the person who is making a noise above the stipulated decibels.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that there is general satisfaction and agreement with the regulations that were introduced for standardising exhausts on new machines and also replacement exhausts? However, as was mentioned when this matter was raised in the House some time ago, there is a problem over modification or "jazzing up" by riders. Is the Minister aware that the motorcycling organisations themselves are very worried about this, and also that there are more complaints about motorcycle noise than about almost any other matter connected with motorcycles?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes, indeed I am aware there is much concern about motorcycle noise. With regard to general agreement on existing legislation and regulations, I would disagree with the noble Lord because we are seeking to make the regulations even more stringent so as to reduce the noise level. As I am sure the noble Lord and others of your Lordships will be aware, there are regulations before us in the Community and we want to reduce the decibel level below even what is suggested in the regulations.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, could my noble friend encourage the police to perhaps inspect motorcycles when they are parked or garaged, in order to see whether the silencers have been tampered with, or even disconnected? That is an easier and quicker way than trying to catch them on the high road, which has its complications and difficulties.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if I may, I will take up my noble friend's point and discuss it with my honourable friends.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, would the noble Earl explain why he says it is so hard to detect the people making this noise? How is that so, when anybody and everybody living in any street or road can tell exactly who did it? Why is it so difficult for anybody else?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the difficulty is in actually proving that the noise is above the stipulated decibels. It might sound loud to us but, given the other noise that is going on in a roadside situation, it has sometimes proved very difficult for the police to pinpoint the noise at that stage. Once you take the person concerned round the corner on to a straight bit of road where there is no other traffic, he can control the motorcycle in a different way so as to make less noise.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is no technical problem whatever? Fifty years ago BSA produced a speedy machine which was less noisy than any of the machines on the road today.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is right on that point, but the problem comes with somebody who deliberately flouts the law with a smaller machine. It is not the big machines that are the worry; it is the smaller machines, of under 250cc.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is absolutely right? The real nuisance at night from motor-bicycles comes not from machines which are technically outside the law, but from the revving up of machines when young riders start off from cold? That is what produces the horrifying roar which wakes up and annoys everyone.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes, indeed. I am grateful to my noble friend. We appreciate that that is one of the problems.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, would it not be easy to do as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, suggests and prosecute those who take deliberate steps to make their motor-cycles noiser than they need be?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think we also ought to prosecute those who let their machines fall into disrepair.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, as the Government seem entirely unable to enforce any law relating to motor vehicles, what guarantee have they that they will be more successful on this occasion?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, wrong. There were 2,800 successful prosecutions in 1983.

Schools and Industry: Links
3.18 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to disseminate to schools information about links being formed between schools and industry.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has asked local education authorities to appoint officers for this and related tasks. The Government are also encouraging links through various forms of direct financial support; through central initiatives such as the technical and vocational education initiative (TVEI) and the lower attaining pupils' programme; and through their wholehearted backing for Industry Year 1986. They are also publishing a new directory of link organisations which will be distributed to schools at the start of next year.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for a very satisfactory Answer. Perhaps I may ask whether she is aware—I am sure she is—that 40 science and technology regional organisations exist in this country. May I also ask her whether it is possible to obtain funding from the European Community to further this aim?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. There are a number of links which are being encouraged by the
658
Government. In addition, we are giving our full support to the European Community's transition programme which involves some 30 projects throughout the European Community, many of which aim to find ways of improving the relationship between schools and employers. There are five United Kingdom projects in the programme, which has just entered its third year.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that about six weeks ago, under the auspices of the British Institute of Management, an organisation was set up at a meeting held at Warwick University of individuals engaged in both industry and education who were collaborating? At least 150 people were there to set up this organisation, in order that they could be of assistance to each other. Will she agree that such an organisation merits support from the Government?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there are a number of organisations and projects which are receiving support from the Government. Certain of them receive financial support. This is obviously a very worthwhile one. I am not aware of the specific meeting to which the noble Baroness referred, but I shall of course draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that catering is one industry which works very closely with schools in disseminating information? Furthermore, is she aware that the catering industry represents vast opportunities for jobs and presents an enormous number of opportunities for the future?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am aware that the service industries, and the catering industry in particular, are very valuable in this respect. I am very happy to hear from my noble friend that there is a specifically close link between this particular industry and schools, and I think this must be encouraged in every way.

Self-Regulating Organisations: Membership
3.22 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what advice they have given to self-regulating organisations proposed for incorporation in the new regulating structure for the City of London, as to the qualifications and requirements governing admission to membership of overseas applicants or domestic applicants under direct or indirect overseas control.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, the forthcoming Financial Services Bill will propose, for the first time, that all who do investment business should be authorised as

659
"fit and proper" to undertake that business. Membership of a recognised self-regulating organisation will provide authorisation, but those self-regulating organisations will be recognised only if their rules secure that all their members (overseas and domestic) are fit and proper persons.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Will he make it quite clear that what he has said this afternoon is, in fact, retrospective, and that all members of the SROs, as on the date when the Bill comes into operation, will be required to conform with the standards that are, in effect, laid down in the Bill itself? Is he satisfied that the existing investigatory resources in the possession of the present SROs are adequate for the purpose of determining the matters which are referred to in the Question?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in essence I should like to say yes, but I think the noble Lord will recognise that no invitations have yet been issued for self-regulatory organisations to register. This will of course come about when the Bill is published at the end of this year. But certainly I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Question this afternoon, because any self-regulatory organisation so applying will have to ensure that its rules conform with the proposed legislation, and that membership is sufficiently controlled to meet the requirements that will be set down in the proposed legislation, to which I hope your Lordships' House and the other place will agree in due course.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is not this essentially the platonic problem—who guards the guardian? Who decides whether these are proper persons and whether they are continuing to be proper persons? Is this a sort of vetting of a jurisdiction while it is in operation?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will agree that I cannot pre-judge the outcome of the proposed legislation. But the principle in this is that the self-regulation will be within a statutory framework and therefore enforceable.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord prepared to consider representations as to the nature and extent of the investigations that ought to be carried out in order to achieve this purpose?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, at this stage I can assure your Lordships' House that we are well prepared to receive any representations about any point that might be part of the measure that we envisage.

Business Statement
3.25 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a short Statement about next week's business. It has been agreed through the usual channels that the main business next Tuesday
660
should be a debate on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Accordingly, the Second Reading of the Shops Bill, which at present appears on the Order Paper for that day, will be postponed until Monday, 2nd December.

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Bill [H.L.]
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide protection in the courts of the United Kingdom for the rights and freedoms specified in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to which the United Kingdom is a party. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Broxbourne.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Incest and Related Offences (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for Scotland in respect of incest and related offences. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Wilson of Langside.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Ailesbury, M.

Airedale, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Banks, L.

Belstead, L.

Birk, B.

Bottomley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cathcart, E.

Cholmondeley, M.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Davidson, V.

Denham, L.

Diamond, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Ferrers, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Fortescue, E.

Gibson, L.

Gisborough, L.

661

Greenway, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor)

Hooper, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Kimberley, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

London, Bp.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

McNair, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Minto, E.

Moran, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Munster, E.

Nicol, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Phillips, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Rea, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Seear, B.

Sherfield, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Swinton, E.

Teviot, L.

Tordoff, L.

Underhill, L.

Westbury, L.

White, B.

Whitelaw, V. (L. President).

—(Lord Aberdare.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committes, be named of the Committee:—

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Belstead, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cathcart, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Denham, L.

Diamond, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor)

Hampton, L.

Hayter, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jacques, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

662

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Oram, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Seear, B.

Shackleton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Tordoff, L.

Underhill, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Whitelaw, V. (L. President).

—(Lord Aberdare.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities Committee
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Baroness Nicol be added to the Select Committee on the European Communities in place of Lord Oram, resigned.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Earldom of Annandale and Hartfell
3.29 p.m.
Lord Keith of Kinkel: My Lords, I beg to move that the report of the Committee for Privileges be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report of the Committee for Privileges be agreed to.—(Lord Keith of Kinkel.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, a little enlightenment upon this matter would, I think, be of great interest to the House. I understand that this matter has been before previous Committees for Privileges over the centuries and has been a highly disputed one. I wonder whether I may properly ask, was the decision on this occasion unanimous or not? There is no indication to that effect in the report itself, save by the silence of omission. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will indicate a little more about this and cast the light of experience on this famous historic issue.
I understand that the peerage was awarded in the significant year 1643. Certain troubles followed shortly thereafter, and indeed the second Baron was sentenced to death during the subsequent disagreements of the Civil War. But perhaps it is asking too much to hope to extract a little from the noble and learned Lord, and to cast light on this fascinating corner not only of Scottish history but of British history. I do not think Wales comes into the picture very much, so I will not embarrass the situation by bringing Wales into it.
Lord Keith of Kinkel: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the first question which the noble and learned Lord asked. At the proceedings of the Committee for Privileges on 23rd July last it was stated that the five resolutions in the report were unanimously agreed by the committee. It is fair to say that some members of

663
the committee had doubts, as indeed I myself had at certain stages of the argument, but at the end of the day these doubts were resolved, or at least suppressed.
Much though I should enjoy giving your Lordships a detailed account of the whole history of this peerage, I shall refrain from trespassing upon your time and content myself with saying that the report from the committee has been published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Members who are interested will no doubt be able to obtain a copy from the Printed Paper Office and they will there be able to read the whole story. I should mention that I understand that Her Majesty's Stationery Office has already sold 650 copies of the report, which shows it is of some interest at least to the general public.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may just say that the expression "these doubts were suppressed" is a more accurate description than "these doubts were resolved". I myself had very considerable doubts and we had a discussion about this. I did not feel that I was competent to oppose the very distinguished opinion which had been expressed by the chairman who was himself so learned in Scottish affairs. But after some discussion it was agreed that I could defer to his opinion; not agree with it.
I see in the report that we have a somewhat esoteric and curious definition of democracy in so far as it is stated that the opinions of the members of the committee are to be found on page 144. What the report should say is that the opinions of certain members of the committee are to be found on that page. I deferred, and it was on the agreement that I should be noted as deferring to the superior judgment of the noble and learned Lord that I suppressed my doubts. It is fair to say that I was not alone in that attitude of mind.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is fair to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to say that I went with him on this but I felt it right to defer to the expertise of the chairman, who after all was the only member of the committee who was versed in Scots law; and this matter did involve a question of construction of the Charter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1985
3.34 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham)The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th October be approved. [32nd Report from the Joint Committee 1984–85.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this order be approved. The order, which is being made under powers in Section 149 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, is concerned with the basis on which redundancy payments are calculated in the field of local government service. It amends the previous Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) Order which the House
664
approved in July 1983. The need for an amending order arises because of the passing of the Local Government Act 1985, which provided for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils and the establishment of certain new bodies. I trust that I shall persuade your Lordships that, however great our differences on the main Act, this measure is a minor, uncontroversial and necessary consequence of it.
I should explain that under the provisions of Part VI of the 1978 Act an employee who is discharged as redundant after at least two years' service is entitled to be paid a redundancy payment, calculated, among other things, according to his period of continuous service with his last employer. Local authorities and related institutions are legally distinct employers, so that, on the strict basis of the statutory scheme on its own, an employee would be entitled to a payment every time he became redundant, even though he or she intended to move on to a post elsewhere in local government.
This situation would not, however, correctly reflect the realities of local government service, in which a normal career progression commonly involves moving from one authority to another, perhaps several times during working life. Local government collective agreements therefore provide for local authorities to base their redundancy payments on total aggregated service in local government. The 1983 order secures a similar effect in the statutory redundancy scheme, by replacing service with one employer with total "relevant local government service".
Because there is no convenient or comprehensive definition of what constitutes local government employment, it is necessary to list in the order all the employing authorities and bodies with whom service counts as local government service. Two lists are necessary. The first, in Schedule 1 in the 1983 order, lists those employers currently in being, by whom anyone may be made redundant. The second, in the appendix to Schedule 2 in the same order, adds to the first list former bodies which have been abolished in past reorganisations, but with which service may still be reckoned for redundancy purposes.
This amending order simply adds to the list in Schedule 1 of the 1983 order those new bodies which are set up by the Local Government Act, so as to ensure that service with them will be included when any redundancy takes place. The principal additions are the residuary bodies set up for Greater London and the other metropolitan areas to tidy up unfinished business following abolition, dispose of surplus property for the benefit of ratepayers in the areas, and make compensation payments to staff made redundant or re-employed on less favourable terms on abolition. Also included are the new joint authorities which will deal with fire, civil defence, waste disposal and passenger transport, and the newly constituted Inner London Eduaction Authority.
I should add that we have also taken the opportunity to bring in several minor bodies which were overlooked in 1983, listed at items 56 to 59, and to update the legal definition of certain schools in Scotland. The number of employees likely to be affected is minimal.
I trust I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships that these are necessary and innocuous amendments. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th October be approved.—(Lord Young of Graffham.)
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we have no quarrel with the order as it stands. Our questions, which are directed to the Secretary of State, relate to how far the order goes, because we want to be clear about that; to whether the order goes far enough; and to whether the order as it stands deals with many of the problems of workers being declared redundant as a result of the 1985 Act—problems which we raised in the House at the time. I should also like to ask about the way the order relates to the recent announcement of the Government that they are going to end the system of sharing the part cost of redundancies as far as the employer is concerned, from 31st October next.
The House may recall that when the 1985 Bill was before your Lordships, the noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord Winstanley, and myself and several others sought to persuade the Government to give equality of treatment. I mean by that not only equality of treatment for the 70 per cent—according to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, at col. 190 of Hansard for 21st May—who could be expected to be reemployed by the successor authorities, but also for what was termed at the time the 30 per cent., according to the noble Earl, of designated staff who would have to seek re-engagement and recruitment: those unfortunates in planning, highways and central administrative services who might be out of employment for some short time before they were able to secure reabsorption into one or other of the existing authorities carrying out the functions previously undertaken by those authorities which were abolished.
My first question to the Secretary of State is this: how all-embracing is this order? Will it cover merely the 70 per cent. of designated staff who can be expected to be re-employed by the successor authorities, or will it cover others who are in a sense, and as we termed them at the time, non-designated staff who have to take their chances and seek recruitment and re-employment and who may or may not be re-engaged? In general terms, and as I think the trade unions did at the time, we regard being covered by this order as being better than not being covered by it. After all, continuous service applies, and if effective redundancy occurs then redundancy pay will be that much larger. On the whole, people would rather be covered by this order than not be covered by it. Thus my first question relates to the coverage of the order.
I should also like to ask a question about the consequences of the recent announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place, that the Government are changing the system whereby part of the costs of redundancy are shared. My first question on that issue in relation to this order is this: is that announcement likely to affect the applicability of the redundancies which arise out of the Local Government Act 1985? Is it considered that the great bulk of redundancies, the redundancy payments, the re-engagements and the transfer of jobs, will all be over before 31st October 1985? Or will there be a situation
666
in which the authorities will not receive part of the contribution to redundancy which they would have received had it not been for the announcement on the Government's change of policy?
This is the first opportunity we have had to ask the Secretary of State a question about that policy. It extends far beyond the issue of the Local Government Act 1985. It could be that any employer, and not merely an employer by this order, facing the prospect before 31st October 1985 of the coming into effect of the new policy would have an incentive to declare workers redundant. If he declares them redundant now rather than waiting until after 31 st October 1985, he will get part contribution towards the costs of the redundancy payments. Therefore, that provision may accelerate the volume of redundancies in local government and elsewhere. Have the Government taken that into account? Do they think the provision will have that effect?
Moreover, we are afraid that after 31st October 1985 that provision may have the reverse effect. After 31st October 1985 all employers in local government and elsewhere covered by this order will know that they will be responsible for the full costs of redundancy pay. The danger then is that they will hesitate not to declare people redundant but to take people on in the first place. The whole objective of the 1965 legislation in regard to redundancy would be vitiated, because the object of that legislation was to soften the blow so that employers would not feel that redundancy would involve them in a very significant cost, because the Government would pay part of that cost. If the Government are not now going to pay part of that cost after 31st October 1985, will that not make employers less keen to take on people rather than more willing to do so?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I should like from these Benches to join in thanking the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the clear way in which he has explained this order to the House. Like the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, we find the order itself unexceptionable. However—and here I shall be following one or two of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy—when the Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) Order 1983, to which the noble Lord earlier referred, was debated in this House on 27th July of that year, the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, said, at col. 1550 of Hansard, that the employer was responsible for making a payment to an employee discharged and redundant after at least two years of service but could then recover no less than 41 per cent. of the cost from the redundancy fund by way of rebate.
The noble Lord went on to say:
"The financial effect of the order on the redundancy fund in the long term is expected to be neutral. This is because the higher level of redundancy payments which will be payable out of the fund"—
because service after that time was to be aggregated—
"is likely to be compensated by the lower number of claims for rebate being made".—(col. 1551.)
That was because redundancies would be fewer in number.

667
Since then, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has already said, there have been two developments. The first was the passage of the Local Government Act 1985. A number of people now employed by the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council may be engaged by a successor authority other than one of those listed in this order. Their conditions of employment, including their entitlement to redundancy pay, may however prove to be less favourable than those which they now enjoy because they will not come within the scope of this order. As I made plain when moving an amendment to the Local Government Bill in Committee in your Lordships' House last May, we on these Benches deplore that departure from precedent and, as we see it, from sound personnel practice.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said in his Statement to the House last week, the Government, having earlier reduced the rebate payable to employers from the redundancy fund to 35 per cent., now propose to eliminate it altogether from firms employing fewer than 10 people. We are opposed to that development also, as I maintained when responding to the Statement last week. Companies are still having to make employees redundant in considerable numbers and we cannot understand how the Government's decision can be reconciled with the need for this country to become more competitive.
It may be said that those points are not strictly relevant to the order before the House—in the first place because after the passage of the Local Government Act it is a matter of water already under the bridge; and, secondly, because that aspect is to be covered by legislation to be introduced later in this Session and we shall have an opportunity to debate it then. To that potential criticism I can only say that we on these Benches feel so strongly about both the points to which I have referred concerning redundancy payments that I did not feel we could allow this order to be approved without referring to them as I have done.
I make one further comment in relation to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I think, if I may say so, that he inadvertently at one or two points in his later remarks referred to the operative date from which rebates to employers would cease as being 31 st October 1985. I think I am right in saying that it should be 31st October 1986, and no doubt the noble Lord will correct that if I am right.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for his comments, and may I immediately agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that the date is, of couse, October 1986. Indeed, it is because it is October 1986 that the abolition of redundancy rebates as such will not affect local government reorganisation, since by then such redundancies as will have arisen in local authorities should have taken place.
To answer the other principal point made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in fact the order does affect those who would otherwise be carrying on, because those who are leaving local authority will get their redundancy payments but those who are transferring from one authority to another in the
668
normal event will not, as a result of this order, become entitled to a redundancy payment in addition to any other payment they receive.
Both the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred to the abolition of redundancy rebates. That is, of course, entirely another matter, and it is a subject which we shall have an opportunity to debate in due course. What we are proposing is that, in the fullness of time, the money which the Government otherwise spend to facilitate redundancies will in fact be spent, in essence, on helping long-term unemployed and other unemployed people back into the market. A long process which started some 20 years ago, at a time when there was a shortage of people and a real problem (as we had over-employment in this country), was designed to facilitate the transfer of people. It is curious that it should have lasted 20 years during a period when we have had exactly the opposite.
The whole original purpose of redundancy rebates was to help companies shed unnecessary labour. I would not say for one moment that the Government wish to persuade employers to keep unnecessary labour, but we felt that the time had come when priorities should be readjusted and that we should be dealing more and more with the long-term unemployed. However, I have no doubt that we shall have an opportunity to discuss and debate this matter on another occasion.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, may I ask him to be absolutely clear? Is he telling the House that there is no need to shed additional unnecessary labour and, therefore, no need for the Redundancy Payments Act?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords; I am saying that the Government are never interested in persuading employers—particularly employers in manufacturing—to keep unnecessary labour. Indeed, the whole thrust of the Government's activity is to promote efficiency and productivity. I was pointing out that the purpose of the redundancy payments when introduced in 1965 was to persuade employers to dispense with unnecessary labour. It would be curious at a time when unemployment is at the top of all our priorities if the Government continued in a small measure with helping to facilitate additional redundancies.
There is one further point which I should make absolutely clear. None of the proposals affects the rights of anyone made redundant: they merely refer to the rights of employers to recover a small proportion of redundancy payments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous Provisions (No. 2) Regulations 1985
3.54 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington) rose to move, That the draft regulations

669
laid before the House on 12th November be approved. [2nd Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the first order standing in my name be approved. It seems to me that we have been down this road before. I feel a sense of personal embarrassment because I spent a considerable time both inside and outside this Chamber endeavouring to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, in good faith, that the earlier set of regulations we laid before your Lordships last month were of a satisfactory nature. Today we are debating this further set of regulations, and my task is to explain their necessity. May I also express the pious hope that we shall not go over all the same arguments we have heard before.
I should first of all like to emphasise to your Lordships that the regulations we are debating today do not introduce major new changes of policy. Your Lordships debated the policy when earlier regulations were introduced last April. This set incorporates essentially the same proposals, although there are some changes.
The need for regulations arises from a court case in July brought by a Mr. Cotton. In that case Mr. Justice Mann ruled that the Secretary of State did not have power to introduce regulations enabling him to designate general limits for people claiming supplementary benefit for board and lodging. The point at issue was a technical legal one: whether regulations could be introduced giving the Secretary of State power to take decisions—such as designating general time limits and areas and financial limits—that affected a class of case rather than just an individual. The Secretary of State's ability to introduce regulations which give him the power to take decisions in individual cases has not been challenged.
During that case we undertook not to apply the limits on how long certain young people could continue to receive supplementary benefit as boarders until any appeal or new regulations. The judge felt that that undertaking made possible some sensible interim provision. The Secretary of State has appealed, and that case is to be heard next week. Obviously, we do not know when judgment will be given, or what the outcome of that hearing will be; and a wide variety of outcomes are possible. For example, it could well be that there would be no clear basis for deciding how much benefit should be paid. It would be quite wrong to allow such uncertainty for both claimants and staff. As well as reducing any such uncertainty, these new regulations are needed to secure the increase in limits for board and lodging payments to people in residential homes, which go up by £10 per week, and nursing homes, which go up by over £30 per week, from next week. This increase was originally to be introduced under powers on which doubt has now been cast by the original court decision. These new regulations, therefore, provide a clear statutory basis for that increase.
Your Lordships will recall that I made a Statement on 21st October announcing that we had laid new regulations. Those regulations were criticised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments because they felt that they still included provision for which the Secretary of State did not have the power following the
670
court decision to which I have referred. We had not intended to use any such provision until after the appeal court judgment, but we included it in those regulations so that the flexibility that those provisions would have given to the Secretary of State could be used if we had won the case in the Court of Appeal. Nevertheless, in the light of the comments of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments the Government decided that the best course was to withdraw those regulations in favour of new ones.
I now come to the regulations under debate this afternoon. These re-enact, in permanent form, the board and lodging provisions introduced in April. The time limits and areas that apply to certain young people and the financial limits that apply to different categories of board and lodging are re-introduced. But there are no powers that enable the Secretary of State to make decisions which affect classes of cases. These changes meet the concerns of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has considered the regulations. It has not drawn the attention of the House to these regulations on any grounds.
I should now like to draw your Lordships' attention to the aspects of these regulations which are different from previous ones. As I have already said, they secure the increased limits that can be paid to people on supplementary benefit in residential care homes and nursing homes. Existing young people in board and lodging will not be affected by time limits until July of next year (rather than April, as we proposed in the previous set of regulations). That date has been selected to coincide with next year's general uprating of social security benefits.
The regulations also include wider scope for the Secretary of State to exercise discretion to extend transitional protection in individual cases of exceptional hardship—and I emphasise the word "individual" because of course there is doubt about the power of the Secretary of State to go wider than individual cases.
Finally, they introduce a new discretionary power for the Secretary of State to give the benefit of transitional protection to certain individuals. Those are people who were in residential care or nursing homes last April but who did not claim supplementary benefit until later. For example, they might have been meeting their fees out of savings and only needed to claim after April. For people in that position, the new power enables the Secretary of State to pay benefit at the rate which would have been paid before April if that is necessary to avoid exceptional hardship.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, could the noble Earl not wait until it is Question Time? I think he could.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, this is not Question Time; it is a debate. I am merely—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Earl will have his moment to ask. I am sure that your Lordships will welcome those improvements. Apart from those points, the regulations replicate the same

671
provisions as before, namely: they replicate the financial limits for the maximum amount of supplementary benefit that can be paid to people in ordinary board and lodging, ranging from £45 to £70 according to area; they also replicate financial limits for the maximum of board and lodging that can be paid to people in hostels, residential care, or nursing homes, with different limits according to the category of care that the home is registered to provide; and they also replicate the time limits for boarders under 26 on supplementary benefit (two, four or eight weeks according to area), with exemptions for vulnerable groups. Those time limits apply to new cases, so they know in advance how long payment as a boarder will continue. Existing cases have until July before time limits apply.
The technical difference about those new regulations is that the limits and exemptions cannot be changed under these regulations by the Secretary of State. The regulations include extended powers for the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion to avoid exceptional hardship in individual cases, as I have described. But we believe that the House would still wish Ministers to have the further flexibility to respond rapidly when a need for change becomes evident. Under these draft regulations it will, for example, be necessary to come to the House whenever we want to make a minor adjustment in the board and lodging areas or to create a new exemption category. This does not seem to be a sensible use of the House's time. Our intention is therefore that, if the appeal on the Cotton case is decided in our favour, we would at a convenient opportunity introduce new regulations to seek to restore to the Secretary of State general discretion of the type that he had under the April regulations.
These measures are the Government's response to the need to control expenditure on this aspect of supplementary benefit. Between December 1982 and 1984 annual expenditure increased from £166 million to £380 million on ordinary board and lodging, and from £39 million to £190 million for board and lodging payments in residential care and nursing homes. In addition, there were many specific examples of abuse. Our measures are designed to achieve a sensible balance between the needs of the claimant, the proprietors of boarding establishments and homes, and the taxpayer. We have accepted that the limits need to be kept under review, and have undertaken to do that in the early part of next year. We have already demonstrated our flexibility in response to problems—notably the increase in supplementary benefit limits for residential care and nursing homes, which these regulations put on a secure basis.
I never wish to be rude to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, but I thought it as fair to him as to me for him to hear all that I had to say, which I hope perhaps may have covered the point he wished to raise. Of course, if it has not I shall do my best to reply to him when the Front Bench speakers have opened. In the meantime, I commend the proposals to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th November be approved. [2nd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I was very surprised when these regulations were laid before us, because I remember—and the Hansard reference is 14th October 1985, col. 342—that when the question was raised the noble Baroness said in reply to me:
"My Lords, we have obeyed the High Court judgment and, as I said in my original reply, we are waiting to see what is the outcome of the appeal".
I understand that the appeal is being heard on 25th and 26th November, so I hope I shall be forgiven my confusion in wondering why we have these regulations laid before us before the result of the appeal is known. I honestly cannot understand why this should happen.
I understand from a briefing—and I thank the noble Baroness for her co-operation in helping me to understand the ununderstandable—that local officers have been told that the reason for bringing the appeal is that,
"The Department has a responsibility to the taxpayer, claimants and staff to ensure the legal position is clear whatever the outcome of the appeal".
I submit to your Lordships that nothing could be less clear than trying to pass regulations before the outcome of the appeal, and it is to my mind the department's action which is conducing to unclarity, rather than the present situation. We are only talking about a week. It seems to me that to have waited would have been much fairer and would have caused much less confusion among claimants and DHSS staff, with whom I have had discussions about this present situation.
I am also put in a state of great confusion—for which I apologise—when I look at the regulations. They are most strange regulations. At the beginning it is stated that the department has decided not to refer the proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee since it appears that,
"by reason of urgency it is inexpedient to do so".
I wonder what "inexpedient" means in this context. According to the Oxford English Dictionary there is a very interesting meaning of "expedient", which is:
"Useful, politic, as opposed to just or right".
I think that is a very fair comment on the situation today.
I know why the Government have not referred these proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee. It is because that committee has stated previously:
"A long term solution has to lie in housing policy, not merely to develop a greater range of accommodation available to single people, but to improve quality and value for money in existing board and lodging accommodation".
It said on another occasion:
"It is important to remember that the vast majority of claimants are honest and should not be subject to punitive restrictions".
Perhaps I may bore the noble Baroness the Minister with a reference to the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee made in accordance with Section 10(3) of the Social Security Act 1980, where in paragraph 9 it said something very similar:
"We are deeply concerned that in attempting to limit spending and control abuse where it exists, the proposals are likely to affect large numbers of unemployed claimants who have no real option but to stay in board and lodging accommodation, and whose ability to search for jobs will be much impeded by the restrictions on place and length of stay as a boarder".

673
No wonder the Government did not want to refer back to their own advisory committee, in the light of those remarks.
I understand the reference of the noble Baroness to the increasing costs of the accommodation, and I am concentrating on that part of the instrument before us. But in my view, and I think in that of many people of different parties, the high costs are not a measure of government generosity, nor of the cupidity and dishonesty of applicants, but more of the Government's failure to deal with youth unemployment and the housing problems of single people.
I hope that all noble Lords have read the regulations before us. There is one extraordinary aspect. They are supposed to set out rules about the areas in which people can stay and the limits of expenditure in those areas, but there is nothing in the regulations about that. No noble Lord or noble Baroness should think that he or she can discuss the question on the basis of the paper before us because it does not set out the limits of expenditure or describe the areas of limitation. All it does is tell us to refer to a publication called Supplementary Benefit Maximum Amounts, Initial Periods and Board and Lodging Areas, which is published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, is numbered ISBN 0 11 761229 4 and is available from the Stationery Office; and I have to tell your Lordships that it costs £7.
I have been in this or another place for many years, and I must say that in my experience it is most unusual for statutory instruments laid before the House to depend on a cross-reference to a Stationery Office publication. I do not understand the statutory legality of the situation. I suggest that no one is entitled to take part in the debate unless he is also debating the publication which is, in theory, not before the House.
I find this a most extraordinary publication. It sets out in an arbitary and fortuitous way lists of places where people can stay. I must share this fascinating knowledge with the House in case any of us is in need of unemployment benefit! One can stay in Chippenham for four weeks with a limit of £60. I think that Chippenham is probably a very pleasant place in which to stay. One can go to Canterbury for only two weeks for £55. One can then pack a bag and go to Bracknell for four weeks at £65. Then there is Wigan—oh, I love Wigan! One can go to Wigan for eight weeks for £55. But a person can to to Blackburn for only four weeks at £50. I submit to your Lordships that that must be difficult for claimants to understand. It is certainly beyond my comprehension.
Because I am very fond of Scotland—although I do not go there more often than I have to!—I think that I should share this precious knowledge with your Lordships. A person can go to Campbeltown for four weeks for £60 a week, but if he wants to go to Glasgow, he can stay there for eight weeks for £60—as if anyone would want to stay in Glasgow for eight weeks! Luckier people can spend four weeks in Aberdeen for £65.
I suggest quite seriously to your Lordships that that is no way to deal with a serious situation. The rules are difficult enough for us to understand, but what about young people who are unemployed, homeless and
674
rootless, being pushed around from one place to another? Surely there must be a better way to deal with the situation. It is a serious point that I am trying to make. It is not right for us to have in front of us statutory instruments which cross-reference with other documents in this way.
4.15 p.m.
I do not know what is the status of HMSO publications. I was once chairman of a working party on sewage disposal. That working party report is an HMSO publication, and I am pleased to think that those publications are acquiring such legal status. I hope that all that I said then will be considered of similar importance.
I tried to find out a bit about what is happening so far as the claimants are concerned, and I have a copy of a most extraordinary letter which the department has sent to claimants. It is not at all helpful. It is a circular, which of course one understands, and it was sent to unemployed boarders aged 25 or under:
"We are writing to you about your claim as a boarder in this area.
"We can pay you as a boarder for [blank] weeks"—
that is according to whether the young person is in Wigan or in Aberdeen—
"This means that if you remain unemployed we can only pay you as a boarder until"—
and the date is put in.
"After that we will pay you as a non-householder and you will get less money".
It does not say how much less. It goes on to say:
"If you disagree with this decision …
You have the right to appeal".
That means that the decision has already been taken; otherwise, why does the letter say, "If you disagree with this decision"?
The circular gives minimal advice and encloses a list of reasons under which the young person may claim exemption from the rules. The trouble is that he himself has to establish his right to exemption. I should have thought the department's local office ought to decide whether, for reasons of health and so on, he should be exempt. The burden of claiming exemption should not be put on the young people themselves, many of them being in their situation because of difficulties that they have, especially in dealing with officialdom. I think that the standard letter is most unhelpful.
The letter tells them that they can be paid as boarders only for so many weeks "in this area". But it does not tell them what the area is, and unless they buy a £7 book from HMSO they will not know. Who is to tell a young man or a young woman in Croydon that if he or she moves all the way to Finchley, he will still be in the same area? I wish that they would all move to Finchley before 10th October and get themselves on the electoral register! I think that Finchley would be a very good place. But if the young person moves down the road to Redhill, which is nearer, that is a different area. These are confusions which unemployed, homeless and miserable young people really cannot deal with.
I hope that no one advises a young person to go to Brighton because he can stay there for only two weeks. The young person, having been told that he will get less

675
money, has no way of knowing how far he will have to move or by how much the board and lodging charge would have to be reduced to enable him to stay put. Those difficulties show no sympathy for people about whom we are all anxious—and I accept that we are all anxious about them. We ought to try to have a meeting of minds on the best way to help them. No one on this side of the House condones abuse, but if the Government want to tackle abuse, surely they could use their administrative and legal procedures and not adopt a punitive policy for all concerned.
I understand from a debate in another place that about 30 prosecutions are pending. Does that mean that of the over 80,000 young people affected there are only 30 cases in which the department feels that there should be a prosecution? Surely, my Lords, this is not the way to deal with the situation.
There is a cruelty in the present system against claimants. I am trying to be constructive and helpful because I have a lot of experience of this sort of problem. I should prefer the limits to be upon what the landlords can charge and not upon what claimants are expected to pay. Many of these limits, in my practical view, are not ungenerous considering the appallingly low standards of much of the board and lodging in which these young people are staying. Here again, I assure the Minister that I want to be helpful. I would like to see a system where no money is paid from the DHSS for board and lodging except for registered accommodation that has been inspected and is adequate. With licensing, we could be sure that taxpayers were not being taken for a ride, as they are in many cases, and that the young people themselves were not taken for a ride. It seems to be that some of the payments are made too easily and for most inferior accommodation. Many places that I know which are described as board and lodging hardly supply any board at all, except perhaps an electric kettle and a tea bag.
At the heart of the matter there is, of course, the housing problem of single people. This seems to me a much neglected aspect of housing policy. I do not wish to keep the House much longer although, as this is such an important problem. I do not see why I should not. There have been references to what has happened in Euston and King's Cross. That is my old constituency. I know practically every paving stone there. I know, too, every rotten boarding house as well as every good one there. Part of the problem is the feeling of rootlessness that comes to these young people. If you are told that you can stay somewhere for only a fortnight and somewhere else for four weeks, you do not get on the electoral register. The chances are, too, that you do not get on to a doctor's list, that you do not join clubs and that you do not get to know very well the people in the DHSS office, for many of whom I have the greatest regard in what is very difficult work. There is a sense among these young people of not belonging anywhere. All these chronic uncertainties erode any sense of personal pride or sense of citizenship. It is no use talking about delinquent young people when the Government are pursuing a policy that has this effect upon many of them.
I hope very much that we shall be able to debate these questions again. I do not know what will happen
676
at the appeal next week. I should think that there are many people within the DHSS who wish that the regulations had been postponed. It seems to me that with the bringing in of regulations, then their postponement and then their withdrawal, the DHSS has managed to create a mountain of uncertainties and confusions, not only among vulnerable young people but among their own officers and among the voluntary bodies that try to help.
I shall back up what I say, because I do not want the Minister to think that this is some kinky idea of my own. There was a letter in The Times from the director of the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux on 23rd October in which it was stated:
"Our bureaux report genuine claimants with housing choices so limited that lodging houses provide their only hope of a roof will continue to suffer hardship and uncertainty".
I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark will not mind my saying how much I appreciated his letter, also in The Times, yesterday. I know that he will speak for himself. I was nevertheless very impressed with his final paragraph, in which he said:
"Is it not enough that we have a vast army of unemployed young people? Must we drive them out of our communities as well? What are the social consequences likely to be, as a new generation of rootless people move around the country?".
I have tried to put briefly before your Lordships the reasons why we, on this side of the House, deeply regret these regulations, why we deeply oppose the policy and why we look forward to a time when even this Government will see that it has to be altered.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, if I manage to keep my remarks on this occasion brief, it is not because I do not feel deeply on the subject or that my colleagues do not feel deeply on the subject: it is because we should like to associate ourselves entirely with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has so admirably said. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, says that we have been down this road before—and a very muddy, mucky and manured road it is! She also expressed the pious hope that we shall not go over the same old arguments again. I can well understand her desire, and that of the Government, not to do so; but the view of those who are on the receiving end of these regulations is very different. So is the view of those who speak for them—bodies such as CHAR, the campaign for single homeless people, and Church Action on Poverty.
In these new regulations there are some changes for the better. There is some postponement of the results of some of the problems. But, on the whole, the basic objections and questions remain. I should like to ask one specific question and then make a major point. The specific question relates to refugees. This has been raised before in these debates, and it has also been raised in correspondence with the department, but we have not yet had a satisfactory answer. The Government's actions in this area are very difficult to understand. They say, rightly and laudably, that they wish to exempt refugees from the regulations, and they claim to have so drafted the regulations that refugees are exempt. They may be right. But it is certainly true that the regulations are so drafted and the information so dispersed that it has proved, and is likely to prove,

677
very difficult indeed for refugees successfully to claim exemption and very easy indeed for the officials not to understand that exemption should be granted.
The question that I ask the Government is why this should be. Why cannot the exemption be spelt out absolutely clearly? In other fields it is spelt out. In the regulations about free health services, there are very specific statements about exemptions for refugees clearly spelt out. Why cannot this happen in this set of regulations? Please, can we have a clear answer on this? If there cannot be a clear answer, will the Government please do something about it?
I pass from that specific question to the major problem with which the Government are confronted, or which they think confronts them. This problem with which they have therefore confronted us, the House, the nation and those who are suffering under these regulations is, it seems to me, a dismal failure to understand how to deal with the economic situation with which we are faced. The free market way of dealing with situations like this, to which the Government are committed, is impossible. Free markets cannot operate in a humane society in areas where some citizens have no resources. That cannot happen. That was recognised 100 years ago, in the last century. Since then, civilised societies have built up welfare states or their equivalents to cope with the problem.
4.30 p.m.
The Government say that the situation in the welfare state which has been built up has in some ways been a failure, has not been satisfactory, has allowed for fraud, and has allowed for over-expenditure. In my submission neither of those points—the fraud and the over-expenditure—is nearly so great as the Government have made out. I think that the Government have been guilty of preying on fears and playing on people's emotions for the sake of getting votes among the comfortably-off at the expense of those who are poor.
However, in between those two areas—that of the free market which is not workable, and that of the welfare state as it has emerged, which the Government reject—there is room for several compromises. Of those, it seems that the Government have chosen the worst. They put cash limits on accommodation, but on the other hand they make no effort to see that there is sufficient accommodation at those cash limits and therefore sufficient accommodation for the homeless. They make no effort to see that there is a proper standard of accommodation. That again is one of the matters to which the noble Baroness referred, which must be built into any operative system where one is looking after the poor and defenceless.
On top of that, they force a large number of people to move at frequent intervals, making sure that the system brings multiple crises in the lives of as many people as possible and makes matters as difficult as possible for those caring agencies, whether statutory or voluntary, to produce any help. To the various instances that the noble Baroness produced of the troubles in which young people find themselves as a result of having to move on, I add one which no doubt the right reverend Prelate will also dwell on; that is, the
678
difficulty of clergy or any other voluntary workers in any area to get into contact with and to help those young people and to stay in touch with them.
These regulations would be sensible and humane only if they were accompanied by effective government inspection and licensing of bed and breakfast accommodation, with a commitment that if there was not sufficient accommodation available at the right price the Government would raise the limits or make sure in other ways that more accommodation was available. That the Government have failed to do.
I am not an admirer of this Government's economic policies, but on the whole one can see what they are trying to do and why they are trying to do it, even if one often differs with them as to whether it is worth the cost or whether indeed it will achieve its end. But in this area it seems clear that no one has properly thought the problem through from beginning to end. In order for the logic of the Government case to work, the evil they are trying to combat would have to be far higher than anyone, even the Government, thinks it is; and the misery that they are imposing would have to be far less than quite clearly it is.
I am afraid that these regulations will be a real blot—and possibly one of the outstanding ones, eventually—on the record of this Government. In the meantime, they will cause a great deal of individual misery and hardship up and down the country. There is still time over the next few months when the result of the appeal comes through for the Government to change their mind on some of these matters, and I hope very devoutly that they will do so.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness the Minister has had to say in introducing these regulations again. As she has reminded us, they are an attempt to deal with a problem which has escalated in terms of both size and cost. I suppose that this is an example of demand welfare which any Government would be facing at the present time. I do not want to dispute that. It has also to be said that the overall size can easily be exaggerated. I have noted the figures the noble Baroness has given us for the amount of increase in cost, and I should be interested to know what proportion of that would have to be paid out anyway in some form of supplementary benefit; and the actual increase in the number of claimants.
This increase has occurred for two fundamental reasons which are not directly concerned with the regulations, as the earlier speakers have pointed out. The first reason is the large numbers of young people who are unemployed—and that is especially true in the North and the Midlands and in certain pockets in London. There is also a severe shortage of housing for rent to single people of all ages at a price they can afford. That is a situation which I am afraid shows very little sign of improving, despite the autumn Budget.
Sitting behind me normally is the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, who is very much involved with Crisis at Christmas. With great delight she waved at me just now a piece of paper which said that they have just secured a warehouse on the Isle of Dogs for this coming Christmas. I am delighted. But I have to say that I am never delighted—and I have been there at Christmas when they were at Vauxhall, in my

679
diocese—to see the huge number of people who make use of this at Christmas and realise that most of them are permanently homeless and likely to remain so.
There are certain assumptions often made which we need to uncover. They are not factual and are much more difficult to prove. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has already referred to the assumption that there are vast numbers among this group of workshy people who are having a very "cushy" time at the Government's expense. The noble Baroness the Minister used the phrase that there are "many examples of abuse". I should be glad to know how many. I cannot find much evidence, but I have some, and it would be quite wrong to suggest that there is none. Human sinfulness being what it is—it is a proper thing for me to say—there is no question about that, and I should be the last person to deny it. But I doubt whether that is anything like as much as the amount of income tax evasion that is going on at the present time. I should like to see as much effort being given to the pursuit of that problem in this House and elsewhere if we are talking about large sums of money which are either not reaching the Government or are being misspent.
Another assumption is that young people who are out of work can and should stay at home and that the state has no business feather-bedding people who could be with their families. The reality is different. As I am sure the Minister knows, many have no home to go back to. In other cases they have been turned out and will be turned out again if they return. We might all wish that that was not so, but that is the situation. It is a fact that cannot be ignored. Futhermore, leaving home in late teens or early twenties is often regarded as a rather useful part of the process of growing up. There are many noble Lords here who did military service. I believe that the noble Baroness was in the Land Army. We can remember being conscripted at 18 or thereabouts. The experience of going away from home for a spell at that age was not a bad thing, and it was at the Government's expense or, I would prefer to say, the community's expense.
The difference between then and now is that we were being given something useful to do, or so it was hoped, and there was social interaction: we were not pushed out on our own or constantly moved on. I always felt very sorry for those who were posted from one place to the other at frequent intervals. A small proportion of young people today go to college or university. Usually they leave home and stay elsewhere at the community's expense. That of itself is usually socially valuable because it is part of growing up in the wider community.
Therefore, what many of us find most disturbing about these regulations is that they make it almost impossible for any young person who has left home, for whatever reasons—good or bad—to settle anywhere, to try to get work and to become in some measure re-established in the community. I can understand the wish to discourage more people from flowing into London or the South-East, or maybe the seaside resorts. In London we certainly have enough problems with desperate homelessness. However, to force people to move away from their own town, from their own community or county, seems an extraordinary
680
step to take, compounding a stressful situation and inviting the worst consequences of nomadic deprivation. I certainly know what this has done to some youngsters in the North-East, where I used to live. In London, where accommodation is in particularly short supply, more and more people are ending up in the so-called bed and breakfast hotels, to which reference has been made, where standards of health and safety are dangerously low and prices often exceedingly high.
I know that this is not the time to embark on a speech about unemployment, and I shall not do so, but is it yet sufficiently understood by all of us that it is young people who bear a disproportionate share of the heavy burden of technological change, and that this kind of sweeping regulation seems to compound the problem for them even more? Where will it end?
The noble Baroness the Minister mentioned flexibility. I did not in fact follow just how far this would extend. However, in conclusion, I should like to ask the noble Baroness one or two questions. If, in part, the desire is to reduce migration, would it be possible to remove the time limit on those who at least return to their own areas, to their own homes and to places where they were brought up? I understand that those already there will be left where they are until next July. There are people who have moved away who might be persuaded to go back—indeed, it would be better if they did—but who will now be caught by the regulations and be told that they have to move on. That is as I understand the position, although I may have misunderstood it.
Might not those who migrate genuinely wishing to find work in parts of the country where work might be obtained—after all, there is enormous social pressure on them to do just that—be given a minimum, not of two weeks but of nearer three months in order that they have reasonable time to find such work and settle in? Can something be done, and be done quickly, to increase the inspectorate—the people responsible for enforcing standards of hygiene and proper safety in hotels and lodging houses?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, it is indeed a pleasure for me to be able to follow the right reverend Prelate because I can so readily identify myself with some of the situations that he has so graphically described. Through my work with CHAR, Shelter, SHAC and other organisations in this field, I know of the problems in that part of London as well as in other parts of London. I should like to emphasise everything that the right reverend Prelate has said; I certainly appreciate it.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for enlightening us on the changes in these regulations, because this process is becoming rather wearisome. I had tried, with some difficulty, to find any major difference in the regulations from those which had originally been laid. However, as she said, it is true that there are one or two minor improvements, for which in the circumstances we must I suppose be grateful.
The noble Baroness mentioned the reasons for the Government pressing ahead with the introduction of

681
the regulations, and these have been mentioned by previous speakers. For instance, the question of abuse is always mentioned and is always likely to get a headline, but there have been no statistics to accompany these charges of abuse. The only real charge that was laid under pressure in another place was in relation to some office in the Euston-King's Cross area, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Jeger. As for many years I represented a constituency right next door to hers and served on that local authority for over a quarter of a century, I share with her the knowledge of the problems that have existed in that part of London for many years.
It used to be said that the furthest you could carry a heavy suitcase from Euston or King's Cross was Camden Town. That is just as true now as ever it was, only there are more people going to that part of London, where we have a tremendous problem, carrying, perhaps not such heavy suitcases, but certainly packages and bags. However, the only example of abuse referred to the King's Cross area, where there are literally thousands of people claiming board and lodging allowances. Yet when I checked very recently I was told that only 10 people have ever been prosecuted. I do not think that that indicates a major problem which would merit the introduction of new regulations of the character that are being laid today over the whole national field. In spite of the thousands who claim as boarders in that area—and it is probably one of the most affected areas in the whole country—there have been only 10 prosecutions. Therefore, I do not think that the case of abuse has been proven.
There is one other case of abuse that I accept—and I am not biased in anyway. I recall the Minister for Social Security in another place saying that the new rules were necessary in view of clear evidence of a considerable degree of abuse and exploitation of the system by landlords. Most of us who have experienced this problem would underline and emphasise that. I do not think that the noble Baroness would deny that there is a great element of abuse in this field among landlords. Therefore, if that is the abuse with which the regulations are intended to deal, the Government have gone the wrong way about it. They have not even begun to tackle the abuse that was instanced by the Minister himself, but they have tried to build up a case for abuses that do not exist.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the extra cost involved. I believe that I, together with other noble Lords, dealt with that in a previous debate. The extra cost arises for a number of reasons. There are many more people involved. Before the regulations came in the figure was 50,000; it increased to 140,000 in 1984, and it has gone up by thousands ever since. Therefore, there are thousands more claimants, who add to the expenditure. Furthermore, in 1983–84 there was a tremendous increase because the Government agreed on a one-off basis to make a fairly hefty increase in allowances, which had fallen way below what was acceptable or even manageable. So there was a massive one-off injection in 1983–84 plus this massive increase in the number of claimants. Both those increases were major contributory factors to the costs.
The question of unemployment has been mentioned, and it cannot be ruled out. The cuts in
682
housing investment, which take away any hope of a permanent solution, cannot be ruled out. It is now more profitable, and has been for some time, for hoteliers to let to the tourist trade and others; many of them will not let to the unemployed, anyway That increases the problems. The one-off furniture grant that used to be paid by the DHSS in order to allow these people, when they had found a flat, to move in has now been discontinued. Therefore, that has also added to the problem.
The Secretary of State for Social Services is trying to introduce these discredited regulations, as they have been for some time, in relation to homeless people who claim benefit while staying in board and lodgings. He has decided that he cannot wait for the Court of Appeal, although it will decide next week. It would seem perfectly reasonable to have awaited the outcome of an appeal only a few days away before getting into the position of introducing new regulations. That appeal will decide whether the original regulations were illegal or not. He is rushing these regulations through almost in the same form as they were introduced a few weeks ago.
We understand that he has committed himself to saving a certain amount of money for the Chancellor, and that this dictates the whole tenor of his policy. But the regulations which are now in existence after passing through both Houses of Parliament, came into effect last May/June, at the end of the transitional arrangements affecting claimants who were living in board and lodging accommodation immediately before the regulations came into force.
As the transitional arrangements came to an end, the harsh effects that the new rules were having on claimants became apparent. The press and the media were full of examples. I could have brought a whole dossier from the various organisations with which I am connected of the immediate effects on claimants of these new regulations. There was an attempted suicide in Shropshire. We know that there were at least two deaths. There was a tragic suicide in Edinburgh. 1 shall not weary the House with the details, but there are literally hundreds of examples of real hardship that we in this country ought not to even hear about in 1985, but about which we are hearing as a direct result of these regulations.
Late in June the Government announced changes in the regulations because of these press reports. Early in July some changes were debated and approved in Parliament. On 31st July Mr. Justice Mann, as has already been mentioned, giving judgment in the Cotton case, found that the Secretary of State had acted ultra vires in making Regulation 1985 S.I. No. 613.
Because the DHSS lawyers and Mr. Justice Mann himself were concerned about the chaos that would follow the judgment declaring the regulations void, it was agreed with the DHSS that if they suspended the time limits pending either an appeal or new regulations, he would not make a formal declaration on his judgment. The DHSS appealed, and that is the appeal to be heard next week.
In September a local social security tribunal upheld an appeal against the cost limits on the grounds that the regulations had been declared ultra vires in the

683
Cotton case. Again the DHSS has appealed against that tribunal's ruling to the Social Security Commissioner. That appeal will be heard in November. On 21st October, despite all these events, the Secretary of State announced that he had laid interim regulations which would expire in April 1986.
On the following day, 22nd October, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in their report on these interim regulations drew:
"the attention of both Houses to the instrument on the ground that there appears to be doubt whether it is intra vires, and on the further ground that the Department making the instrument are aware of the doubt."
That was the day after. A week later the interim regulations were about to be debated—within hours—in the other place first and then in this House. The Solicitor General appeared before the Joint Committee, and after discussion the instrument was withdrawn, and was not on that occasion debated in either House. Although, as I have said, the appeal has not yet been heard, we have before us today basically the same regulations, with minor changes which have been outlined by the noble Baroness.
Now I do not know how many of your Lordships last night were watching the Conservative Party political broadcast on television. I do not want to give it any undue publicity, and I have to be careful here, but they used a mock trial scene to refute allegations about cuts, about unemployment, about their economic policies, and so on. The judge, who was suitably bewigged and frocked in this mock trial, after taking mock evidence, announced that he would accept a majority verdict of the jury.
Let me tell your Lordships what sadly happens in real life away from the play acting of the Conservative Party Central Office. Since January of this year the real judiciary, in the real world in which the rest of us live, have held that the Government have acted illegally on eight separate occasions. Three of these judgments have involved the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security; and that is a serious indictment of any government in such a short period. Yet we are here again today being literally bludgeoned by the massive elective majority that in my view the Government sometimes abuses in the other place, to force through these regulations despite the impending appeals.
I should have thought that certainly in this House that aspect would have been understood far better than anywhere else. In my humble layman's view, if there were no other reasons for rejecting these regulations surely the Secretary of State's and the Government's general apparent contempt of the law would have been enough for us to say that we should await the outcome of the appeals and then come back with regulations. However, as my noble friend on the Front Bench has already said, there are other reasons, and we know that the question of cost and everything comes into it.
If the regulations are passed, we shall again be back in the same cycle of hardship, difficulty, and the awful and traumatic experiences which some of our youngsters have endured since the original regulations. In fact, the first evictions in London could take place in a few weeks' time, just about Christmas or New
684
Year. A happy Christmas to those homeless who are now becoming the victims of this wonderful present from the Government!
In my own borough of Camden, the Housing Aid Centre has shown conclusively in a detailed and broad survey that,
"new DHSS board and lodging limits are unreasonable and will force homeless claimants to choose between sleeping rough or going without food.".
I think that is serious, although a lot of people do not seem to take too much notice of it. They say that they are,
"dealing with claimants who without exception are having to supplement their lodgings allowance with their £3·10 daily food money.".
And are having to use some of that food money for their lodgings, if they can get them.
From a survey of 229 hotels, which is a fairly reasonable survey in that borough—and the lists were provided by the DHSS offices themselves; there is no question of abuse of a list—only one hotel charged less than the DHSS limit, and it was full up. There were no vacancies. Only five charged less than the £48·30 weekly amount, and again understandably there were no vacancies. The vast majority were charging between £11 and £20 a night for a single room. Six hotels on the list charged more than £60 a night, and one hotel charged over £ 100 a night.
That puts it into perspective. I hope anyway that it gives some credibility to the remarks of both Camden and myself that these youngsters, placed in these awful circumstances, are having to choose between eating or sleeping, or a mixture of both, and we are finding that more and more are sleeping for a couple of nights, if they can afford it, and then eating and then sleeping rough on the Embankment, or in a tube station, or car parks, or wherever else. God knows! that they can be found all over London, and nobody can be happy with that situation, or even try to advocate it.
I hope that these facts, plus all the other facts mentioned in previous debates, will persuade the noble Baroness that perhaps she ought to have another talk to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other place, and convince him first about the legal arguments and his impatience to save money, and secondly that this is the wrong way to approach this matter. There is a majority of opinion which understands these problems throughout the country which would say that far the better thing to do would be to take these regulations back, and to come back for further discussions and consultations with the voluntary organisations who operate daily in this field at the sharp end of these policies. Discuss with them what looks to me not only a serious problem but a problem which is continuing to grow and will get more and more serious as time goes on unless the Government, as I suggested, withdraw the regulations and come back later for a more reasoned and patient discussion.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for saying that she would never wish to be rude to me. I notice that she is the soul of courtesy and she would never be rude to me or anyone. If she refuses to give way to a single

685
interruption there must be a serious reason. Anyone who has listened to the speeches of my noble friend Lady Jeger, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, to the right reverend Prelate and to my noble friend Lord Stallard, will know that there is a very good reason, that these regulations are a disgrace. They are a disgrace in form as well as content.
I repeat one thing that was said by my noble friend Lady Jeger about the form. My noble friend Lord Stallard speaks very effectively for Camden, but I am also concerned with Camden in the sense that for many years I have been chairman of a youth centre for homeless young people in Camden. I shall say a few words from that point of view. Let us suppose that young people in Camden try to discover from this document how much they are entitled to. As my noble friend Lady Jeger explained, it would be impossible unless they are ready to pay £7 for another document from the Stationery Office. It is only 5 o'clock, so we cannot call this a very late hour (it is teatime for some people) but even at 5 o'clock I think I am entitled to read this document for the sheer absurdity of the clause which a young person would have to try to interpret. I think I have the right heading, but if I have some other clause it is because I am as befuddled as anybody. Under the heading "Ordinary board and lodging accommodation" we read this:
"Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, where the accommodation provided for the claimant is not a residential care home, a nursing home or a hostel, the appropriate amount"—
and this is what the young person will want to find out—
"shall be the amount shown as applicable in columns marked 'LIMIT' in the publication entitled 'Supplementary Benefit Maximum Amounts. Initial Period and Board and Lodging Areas' published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1985 (a) in respect of the board and lodging area therein described in which that accommodation is situated".
No young person however brilliant (and possibly not many older people) would be able to discover from that what they were entitled to.
With great respect to the noble Baroness, who cannot be held responsible for this, I hope she will give her civil servants a little of the treatment that is occasionally meted out by the wives of headmasters. In other words, I think she should give them some stick for planting her with this document containing the kind of thing that I have read out. It is a disgrace. Of Government documents, for which we have all had our share of responsibility, I cannot remember a more lamentable effort than this one.
Let us turn to the merits or demerits of the issue. I was talking this week to a number of young people in this centre of which I am chairman. I shall not quote all their opinions because some of them were unprintable, because their language is not quite adjusted to the tone of your Lordships in all cases. There is not time to quote many, so I shall quote one example out of several. This young man—Robert is his Christian name—is aged 23. He receives £81·50 a week. The theory is that £48·30 of that will go towards the accommodation, including breakfast which does not usually seem to be available. That in theory would leave £32·20 for food, laundry and everything else. In practice there is no accommodation at £48.30. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, was taking examples from Camden which are perfectly true. Perhaps some of the
686
higher ranges would not be expected to be available to these people, but there is no accommodation within this range. I think the noble Lord said there were 229 hotels being investigated and in only five could accommodation be obtained.
To follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, the first essential is to make sure that this accommodation is provided. I shall not go into further detail as it was put clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont; but the Governnment have a terrible responsibility if they say to people that they will be given £48·30 when there is virtually no accommodation available at that figure. That is the situation.
We may ask, what do they do? What it amounts to in practice is that they take £7 or £8 a week from their food allowance. I am sure that is not the intention, certainly not of the noble Baroness or her Minister or anybody else. They just shut their eyes to it. They do not want to believe it is happening, but that is the situation.
I shall not go on further. I think the argument has been deployed so thoroughly by other speakers. I want to applaud and endorse everything that has been said by earlier speakers.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and we have managed to cover some new ground. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, of whom I am very fond, sometimes tries my patience and I always rise like a fish. He is very keen on reminding me that I am a headmaster's wife. As such, I charge him to go home and do his homework. I should further say that I am thoroughly in favour of these regulations: I support the need for them wholeheartedly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and others, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, asked why the new regulations have come before the outcome of the appeal. The Court of Appeal hearing, as your Lordships know, has been fixed for 25th and 26th November, when the appeal will be pressed vigorously. But the Government have a responsibility to the taxpayer, claimants and staff to ensure that the legal position is clear, whatever the outcome of the appeal. If the appeal were to be lost, for example, there would be considerable uncertainty for claimants and serious administrative implications for local offices. The Government are acting to avoid these possibilities.
These regulations have been laid under the urgency procedure, which means that the Social Security Advisory Committee does not need to be consulted in advance. They were urgent because, as I have already explained, we needed to have new regulations in place by the time the Court of Appeal hears the appeal in the Cotton case. The regulations have been sent to the Committee which has decided to consider them and make a report. We look forward to that report.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred to tribunal cases where financial limits were held to be invalid. The chief adjudication officer has appealed to the commissioner. The Secretary of State, as is perfectly normal, has suspended implementation of the decision until the case is heard by the commissioner. That will be after the Court of Appeal has ruled on the technical legal point.

687
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, made us all laugh by her guide to the provinces. May I remind her, the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, that the whole point of this exercise is to look for a job. The idea is not to swan around from resort to resort. It is not for people to stay in accommodation that they cannot afford. It is for people to look for work and not to be landed in accommodation they cannot afford when they obtain that work. It is for that reason that we have been forced into taking these measures.
The noble Baroness in her amusing lists of establishments and their price lists said that it was unusual for regulations to refer to an outside publication. Not so, my Lords. Regulations refer to HMSO publications, to outside publications, frequently; and the publication, as a result of the cross-reference, becomes part of the instrument. It is cost-saving. I can give her a couple of examples. Babies Dummies Regulations 1976 Statutory Instrument No. 836 and Merchant Shipping Radio Installations (Amendment) Regulations 1984 both referred to outside publications.
It is not true, as several noble Lords implied, that young people were wandering round the country. A survey of 2,350 claimants in the South East carried out between June and August 1985 showed that some 5 per cent. of the claimants concerned moved to a different local office area, not necessarily to a different board-and-lodging area. A similar proportion remained at the same address and changed their benefit status to householder, compared with over 28 per cent. who stayed at the same address as non-householders. This study did not identify separately claimants who returned to their parental homes. A much smaller study in Scotland found that about one-third of the people who changed their address following reassessment returned to live with parents and that a further six people moved to friends or other relatives. Most of the rest became householders. Indications from local offices generally support the broad findings of these studies; so that the allegations that these regulations are making young people homeless are not supported by the evidence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked why there were only 13 prosecutions if there was so much abuse of the scheme. The main aim of the exercise, in order to limit abuse rather than to seek prosecutions, was to identify those claimants who were not living at the hotels stated on their claim forms. In the event, 13 prosecutions were nevertheless brought. In some cases we have found outright fraud. We hope to bring many more prosecutions both of landlords and of claimants themselves. Many more cases of abuse and of taking advantage of the system in an unacceptable way have been found. That is why, again, changes are needed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked about the rise in expenditure due to unemployment. The number of boarders aged 25 or under more than doubled from 23,000 in 1982 to an estimated 56,000 in 1984. This rapid growth in numbers is far in excess of what can be justified by factors such as increased unemployment and homelessness. It is clear that financially attractive board-and-lodging payments were too readily available. I submit to the noble Lord,
688
Lord Beaumont, who also brought up this point, that no responsible Government could allow spending to continue to expand in this uncontrolled way. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, was concerned about the administration, and about how to claim exemption from the time limits. Most of the vulnerable cases should be covered by the exemption categories. Others will be covered by the Secretary of State's discretionary powers. Guidance to local offices asks them to be particularly alert to the problem that an individual claimant might be experiencing. Notification letters to claimants ask the claimant, or anyone acting on his behalf, not only to let the office know immediately if he thinks that he falls into one of the exemption categories but also to let the local office know of any special circumstances which may show a need to be in board-and-lodging accommodation.
I repeat the feelings that we all share about the great tragedy of the suicides. Perhaps they could have been avoided if the friends and people around those people had been able to help them when they went to offices. I have made the plea in this House before that where people are helpless a helping hand should be shown towards them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked why financial and time limits vary according to area. The area limits are set according to local circumstances. The areas take account of normal living, working and travelling patterns. The limits have regard to the local cost of board and lodging. We have this system because we are anxious to be fair and flexible. The aim of the time limits is to ensure that, once young unemployed people have had a reasonable opportunity to seek work locally, they do not settle down, as I have said before, into what is often expensive and unsuitable accommodation.
5.15 p.m.
The noble Baroness again asked whether these regulations are evidence that Government policy is in a state of chaos. No, my Lords. I explained in my opening speech why we need the regulations before the appeal hearing in the Cotton case. If we had taken no action, then there would have been a very real chance of danger of confusion for claimants and staff alike depending upon the outcome of the appeal. What we are doing now is taking sensible action to reduce the risk of uncertainty.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked me about special exemption for refugees. I have said this before but it is certainly worth repeating. Refugees should be among those protected from the time limits by the exemption categories. This has always been our aim. I acknowledged in the House on a previous occasion the difficulties that were being encountered initially in some cases. Instructions have been issued to the local offices stating that DHSS headquarters should be consulted by the local offices by telephone in any case where it appears that a refugee may not qualify for exemption. This additional safeguard should have removed any remaining cause for concern on the question of time limits as they affect refugees.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, that is welcome so far as it goes. But why will the

689
Government not spell this out in the way that they have in the health charges regulations? Why will they not do the same in this area?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, because they prefer to do it the way they are doing it. If the noble Lord can tell me of any cases which have gone wrong as a result of the Government's action in this way, I shall be most grateful if he will let me know.
The noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Stallard, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark ask for evidence of abuse. There were indications of a growing market specifically for DHSS claimants, sometimes with higher charges for people on benefit, it being recognised that people in work could not afford the charges. The indication was the rapid growth in new establishments, with some proprietors making very high returns from letting at the local limits. Some proprietors of hotels and guest houses advertised for DHSS claimants and encouraged them to live in their establishments when otherwise they might not have done so. These establishments were by no means confined to seaside resorts.
It was clear that the benefit system was stimulating artificially the provision of inappropriate and expensive board-and-lodging accommodation. There was widespread evidence of landlords buying, renting and converting premises and then seeking to attract claimants in order to reap significant financial returns. I can give one example. This is in Cliftonville:
"Accommodation in spacious house with all conveniences. DHSS fees arranged. All bedrooms have central heating, colour t.v. and tea-making facilities. £40 per week, full board."
That was in 1984. On higher charges for unemployed people, examples of the practice have been found at Launceston, Elgin, York, Reading, Thanet, Southampton, Westminster, Birmingham and Nottingham. That is a list. There are newspapers to match, which have been advertising at the DHSS market.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, but this is very important. Can the noble Baroness tell us what action, if any, the department have taken in these cases where the landlords, rather than claimants, are clearly abusing the revenue?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, £40 a week is actually not above the limit: the one I quoted. If the establishment is quoting above the limit, it is up to them: this is a free country. If they are stating specifically "DHSS fees arranged", then that means they are going into the limits area. They are not actually committing an offence, as such. I think the noble Baroness will recognise that.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, spoke about Camden's surveys of board and lodging. In view of Camden's legal action, I cannot comment in detail on their surveys. Noble Lords would be well advised to look very carefully at the basis of these surveys before they reach a view on their validity. It is worth noting, for example, that about a third of our local offices covering the London area have experienced increases in the limits as a result of the changes in April. In other words, to go back to what the noble Baroness was
690
saying, a place may have been charging £30 a week, but when the DHSS limits went up they put their limits up. That is unfortunate, but maybe it is not for me to comment upon that; it is no crime.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, spoke about bad accommodation and what was done about it. I understand that local authorities have a wide range of powers and duties to require improvements in the management and physical condition of houses in multiple occupation. I further understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has commissioned some research to be done into houses in multi-occupation standards
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and the right reverend Prelate said that the real problem is economic. I agree that the welfare state is necessary to ensure that people have money; but that does not mean that the Government should pay any amount of money to young people to live in unsuitable accommodation. I have already gone through some of the evidence of abuse.
I think I have answered all the points that were raised by your Lordships. This is such a complicated area, and those who criticise our policy in this debate should be judged on whether they have credible alternatives to suggest, and whether their proposals will achieve a sensible balance between the legitimate interests of claimants, proprietors of boarding establishments and homes and taxpayers. We believe that our proposals strike the right balance.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dental Auxiliaries (Amendment) Regulations 1985
5.23 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st October be approved. [32nd Report from the Joint Committee 1984–85.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The draft regulations propose an amendment to the Dental Auxiliaries Regulations 1968, as amended, by increasing the fees payable to the General Dental Council by persons in respect of their enrolment as dental hygienists or dental therapists, who provide limited treatment under the direction of dentists. The draft has been prepared by the General Dental Council and has been approved by the Privy Council in accordance with the requirements of Section 45(9) of the Dentists Act 1984. Before the regulations are made, Section 45(9) of the 1984 Act requires the approval of your Lordships' House to the draft.
The changes proposed are to increase at the end of this year the fee for first enrolment from £4 to £7 and the annual fee for retention of a name on the rolls from £3 to £6. These fees have not changed since December 1978. It is also proposed to increase the fee for restoring a name to the roll once it has been erased, from £l to £2. This fee has not changed since 1959. All these increases are within the level of inflation for the period.
The fees' income helps the General Dental Council to meet the increasing administration costs of

691
maintaining the rolls, and in the public interest exercising supervision of training, examinations and standards of practice. The proposed changes are not excessive and I commend the draft regulations to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st October be approved.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, with these regulations the noble Baroness arrives in calmer waters. The regulations are indeed straightforward and are approved by the General Dental Council, and the representatives of the dental auxiliaries on that council also go along with them. Even now, under the new provisions, the charges will probably be far cheaper than the cost of maintaining the register, and therefore we go along with and support the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Discharge of Dangerous Substances: ECC Report
5.26 p.m.
Lord Nathan Lord Nathan rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the Discharge of Dangerous Substances (15th Report, 1984–85, H.L. 227).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The title of our report sounds forbidding and the subject esoteric and highly technical. It is; but issues arise of broad significance, and it is to these that the report primarily relates. We are dealing here with the most dangerous substances, generally referred to as "black list substances", which, by definition, are toxic, persistent and bio-accumulative. They present particular dangers to the environment when discharged to water. DDT is a good example, particularly of persistence. Although it has not been manufactured and used in the United Kingdom for some time, it may still be detected in surface waters. The greatest care therefore needs to be taken in the use of these substances and the control of discharges to water.
The draft directive considered in this report is intended to create the general framework for the control of discharges of the dangerous substances set out in List 1 in the annex to the directive made in 1976: that is, 76/464/EEC, which I will call the "parent directive". These are the substances generally referred to as black list substances. It was intended, when the parent directive was made, that the control of discharges of black list substances would be the subject of later directives. A list of around 50,000 substances falling within the black list originally existed, but procedures have been adopted to reduce these to 129 priority substances based principally on chemical structure, level of production or use and evaluation of risks to the aquatic environment. "Daughter' directives have been made on mercury, cadmium and hexachlorocyclohexane (lindane).
In order to speed up the slow progress thus far made the Commission has proposed this present directive
692
(4519/85), which contains provisions for control of substances as they arise for consideration. It is intended that the draft directive should be supplemented from time to time by annexes containing technical provisions relating to specific substances. Indeed, annexes related to the first four substances to be regulated by this new procedure are published with the draft directive. The provisions include regulations for new and existing industrial plants and monitoring requirements for areas affected by industrial discharges; and they require member states to draw up programmes for the elimination of pollution from multiple sources. The annexes thus far published relate to chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, DDT and pentachlorophenol.
The draft directive preserves the option instituted in the parent directive of adopting the "limit value" or "environmental quality objective" approach to controlling discharge of dangerous substances to water. In essence, the difference is this. The "limit value" approach involves the establishment of permissible limits of discharges to water, according to quantity and concentration of the substance to be controlled. The "environmental quality objective" approach, on the other hand, involves the establishment of a standard of water quality to be achieved and the control of discharges of the substance accordingly.
In the report, the committee has looked afresh at this option and the problems to which it gives rise, and recommends that for each substance the most appropriate techniques for the control of pollution should be used and that these should be applied uniformly in respect of that substance throughout the Community. We have been prompted to look at the position afresh, because the draft directive will apply to further black list substances as they arise for consideration, and it will therefore be the framework by which they will be governed—a framework which will be with us for many years—governing the control of the whole range of black list substances, apart from those few to which the existing specific directives already made relate.
We have also borne in mind what was said in the Tenth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, of which both the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I have the privilege of membership. The Tenth Report's reference is Cmnd. 9149, and that report says at paragraph 3.26:
"If only in the interests of international co-operation, the United Kingdom must respond to the views of its European Community partners and it should do so in a way that ensures that constructive criticism is not mistaken for obstructiveness. Foresight and prudence also suggest that the United Kingdom should re-appraise its stance on irretrievable discharges to the sea of toxic substances which are unarguably persistent and bio-accumulative, and which provide the justification for the 'black list' and 'List 1'."
The dispute which gave rise to the compromise in the form of the option to adopt the "limit value" or "environmental quality objective" approach was one in which the Commission and all other member states of the Community preferred the former, and indeed insisted upon it, while the United Kingdom alone stood out for the latter. If, therefore, a change is to be made, it is fitting that the United Kingdom should initiate it.
The 129 priority substances vary in their toxicity and persistence and in the extent of bio-accumulation.

693
Further, the predominant sources from which they are discharged to the aquatic environment differ for each substance. Some enter the aquatic environment in substantial concentrations, primarily from a few industrial units; others, in greater dilution, from a number of small industrial discharge points where the substances are used or handled; and yet others from diffuse sources such as run-off from agricultural land or in the form of leachate from waste landfill sites. No one approach is, therefore, appropriate.
The adoption of "limit value" or the "environmental quality objective" approach or, indeed, limitation of use—or a combination of some or all of these—must be adapted to the substance in question, its use, the manner in which it is discharged and the techniques available for monitoring. It follows that each substance under consideration must be assessed in relation not only to its characteristics, but also to its use and the predominant source of discharge, and action taken in accordance with that assessment uniformly throughout the Community.
The draft directive should be so framed as to permit this to be done. By incorporating this flexibility into the draft directive, due regard can be given not only to the current environment but also to the future environment. The future environment is liable to be especially affected by substances which are particularly persistent, or which accumulate in organisms or food chains to a high degree. The sea is the ultimate repository and discharges to inland waters and estuaries should be treated accordingly.
The merits and demerits of any particular approach to controlling pollution are not determined by national boundaries, but are related to the environmental behaviour of each substance and its pattern of production and use. It does not, therefore, seem sensible that the approach to control should be left within the discretion of any particular member state, as allowed for in the parent directive, and now in the draft directive under review. Further, the option to adopt one or other of the two prescribed approaches has led to suggestions, by those who prefer the "limit value" approach, that the "environmental quality objective" approach is a soft option, while those who prefer the "environmental quality objective" approach suggest that what is in issue in the case of all member states is the determination of water quality standards and that only one, the United Kingdom, adopts them. Friction is, therefore, created by the very existence of the option in relation not only to environmental theory but to the economic consequences which some perceive.
In the course of our study and through the evidence we have received, we have become seriously concerned about the procedures adopted by the Commission in obtaining and evaluating the scientific evidence that it has sought. We believe that these procedures should be revised to ensure that the scientific committee advising the Commission is fully aware of the purpose and context of the advice which is sought from them, and that this advice is far more widely disseminated among the scientific community than has hitherto taken place, so that informed comment from those qualified to do so may be taken into account by the Commission before making a recommendation.
The confusion, to which we refer in our report, between the contents of the explanatory memorandum issued in conjunction with the present draft directive and the scientific reports which were obtained by the Commission, indicates to us the urgent need for the Commission to have available to it scientists who are able to interpret and evaluate the advice which the Commission receives. These matters become of particular importance if the recommendations we have made, to which I have referred. were adopted; for it is a consequence of these recommendations that priority should be given to substances not only according to their intrinsic properties, but also to their use. This means that they must be kept under review as demand and use change. There is the further matter, that if the Commission were adequately equipped with scientists, it might be easier for it to assess which of the 129 priority substances should be given the greatest priority, which is clearly a matter of considerable importance and concern.
We recognise that negotiations on this draft directive have already reached an advanced stage, and that it might therefore prove difficult on this occasion to achieve the fundamental revisions of policy which we consider necessary. If this should be the case, we propose that our recommendations should be agreed on the next occasion when further black list substances are considered.
When this draft directive first came before us it seemed, if I may use the phrase, a rather arid subject, yet it appears that in the past—and many of your Lordships have far longer experience of this than I—much heat has been engendered.
For the reasons I have mentioned, I believe that publication of this draft directive presents an opportunity for a radical review of the current approach to the control of pollution by the black list substances, and that the uneasy compromise in the parent directive in 1976, which it is now proposed should be continued, should be displaced by a new approach on the lines I have indicated.
It is a great disappointment to me, and I am sure to other Members of your Lordships' House, that the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, is unable to be present, for he played so large a part in the development of the "environmental quality objective" approach to pollution control and its place at the centre of thinking and practice concerning water pollution in this country. The noble Lord was of course a member of the committee whose report we are now considering and endorsed the recommendations which we made and to which I have referred. It is right that I should tell the House that I have his permission to confirm to your Lordships his full approval of the recommendations.
In a broader context, I believe this new approach would in a small way help to bring the Community a sense of unity which it so sorely needs. I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively and that the Government will initiate discussions with the Commission and our partners in the Community to secure agreement on the lines set out in our report, and thus eliminate a cause of friction which has gone on far too long. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the Discharge of Dangerous Substances (15th Report, 1984–85, H.L. 227.)—(Lord Nathan.)
5.43 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, in supporting this report which the noble Lord has already described with such lucidity and some very penetrating comments. I should certainly like to join him in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, who has had such an invaluable influence on the evolution of the prevention of pollution policy in this country. I hope that we may yet see him with us again quite often.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, about the need to strengthen the Commission's procedure, particularly with regard to the scientific advisory committee, and about the desirability of its advice being made known to member states. As the noble Lord has said, the directive proposes a new approach to the 1976 directive and to speed up the control of sources of dangerous substances. This seems in every way desirable, as all we have today are the first four of the 129 substances. There must be a need for an accelerated approach to this important subject. The four we have are not tremendously important—chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, DDT and pentachlorophenol—so that the actual intrinsic significance of this draft directive is not really epoch-making, to say the least of it. By far the most important aspect of the draft directive is in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Community itself.
As the noble Lord said, this directive proposes that the member states should have the option of establishing control over these dangerous substances and any subsequent candidates, either by the system of limit values or by a system of environmental quality objectives. We were certainly persuaded by the evidence we received that a system of limit values alone would not be sufficient. It is adequate obviously for major discharges, but there is often pollution from a number of diffuse sources such as toxic rubbish tips and, as the noble Lord said, agricultural run-offs, and so on. The total effect of those in a stream could be determined only by monitoring in the water itself and therefore in relationship to an environmental quality objective. Thus we were convinced that full control can be achieved only by a combination of both methods, and that is what we have recommended.
This has a very important extrinsic significance because it could be seen, if our recommendation is accepted, as a reconciliation of the long-running difference of opinion between the United Kingdom and the Commission about the correct method of controlling the discharge of dangerous substances. The story starts from the 1976 directive, which specified the groups of substances regarded as particularly dangerous on grounds of persistence, toxicity and bio-accumulation. In the event, that directive gave member states the option of controlling either by limit values or by applying environmental quality standards.
696
The council's decision to allow the option to member states of methods of control resulted from the insistence of the United Kingdom that limit values alone was not the best system of control. Here in the United Kingdom we have traditionally fixed discharge standards by a relationship to the quality of the water into which the discharge was to go. This seems only commonsense. I am not saying that in past decades this method may have allowed some pretty black spots, but following the Water Act 1973 the 10 regional water authorities had such complete powers of control over all discharges—indeed, they were responsible for all sewage works themselves—that by 1976, when we were talking about this, rapid progress was being made in reducing pollution, and the National Water Council, of which I was then chairman, was about to introduce a system of environmental quality objectives for every river in the country.
As chairman, I had to give a very strong lead to my colleagues in the regional water authorities to persuade them that they should accept the major financial commitment that this involved. However, they did accept it after a certain amount of arm-twisting, and progress has continued rapidly since then, including now on the estuaries, which are more difficult and expensive. Since last summer an extra stimulus has been added by the implementation of Part II of the 1974 Act. It is also at work on coastal waters, with the installation of the long-distance discharges out into the sea in order to deal with the many short discharges we have, almost at the tide level. It was against this background in the water industry that United Kingdom Ministers confidently stood their ground in 1976 and insisted that environmental quality objectives should be accepted as at least as effective as limit values.
The EC Commissioner, Mr. Carpentier, who some of us will remember with great pleasure—one could not have a more charming and more intelligent man—visited us, and the National Water Council gave him a presentation of our methods, both in theory and in practice, which I think I conducted myself. I think we convinced him of the validity of the United Kingdom position—that this was not just a device, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, put it, to give ourselves a soft option. Hence the 1976 directive gave member countries the option of limit values or environmental quality objectives. But unfortunately our European friends have not had quite the intimate knowledge of the situation that Mr. Carpentier had, and they certainly suspected that the United Kingdom approach was giving us a method of conforming with the 1976 directive on the cheap, compared with themselves on limit values; that is, we were a rather substandard partner.
I know the water scene pretty well, especially in Italy and France. I have swum for many miles round the coast of Italy and can give personal testimony of the conditions of some of the coastal discharges there and the absence of treatment of any kind. So I am confident that the rate of progress in reducing pollution in the United Kingdom, both in our rivers and in our coastal waters, compares favourably, if not very favourably, with our European partners. I might

697
possibly yield pride of place to Holland, but not to anyone else.
It is against that historical background that I feel a special satisfaction that we recommend, in connection with this draft directive, that the correct answer is to apply both systems on control—limit values and environmental quality objectives. That would bring us completely in step with our partners in Europe and give them a better system of control than they have now. I hope that the Commission and the council will recognise the cogency of our recommendation. If that is not possible, as the noble Lord said, for this directive, I hope it will be possible for the future.
5.51 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Nugent, in saying how sorry I am that the Noble Lord, Lord Ashby, is unable to be with us for today's debate. As the first chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, he led the way in the early 1970s in considering how best we in the United Kingdom should tackle the problems of water quality and pollution control. He subsequently took the lead in the relevant subcommittees of the Select Committee on the European Communities of this House in scrutinising the scientific justification for the proposals relating to pollution emanating from the Commission in Brussels.
The lay members of the relevant committees, of which I have been one for a number of years, rely greatly on Lord Ashby's knowledge and judgment and have deeply appreciated his continuing interest in this subject over the years. It would have been particularly appropriate for him to have joined us this afternoon when, after a decade or so of experience, your Select Committee, following the 10th Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Control, to which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, referred, is suggesting some modification in the United Kingdom's approach. We would hope to inspire some corresponding modification in the attitudes of at least some of our European partners.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has already outlined the main recommendations of the committee included in our brief but, I think, lucid report. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, from his great experience, has elaborated on them. I am hoping that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in particular will analyse further the scientific basis of our recommendations. I propose, therefore, to concentrate on a narrow but important aspect referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan: that is, the method by which the Commission and the member states determine the priority to be afforded to the different substances potentially concerned in this exercise.
As we have been told, a list of originally some 1,500 chemical substances has been reduced to a list of 129, of which some 20 have been studied in more or less adequate depth. Of those, only about half a dozen have reached the stage of being the subject of draft directives. One of those proposed drafts, dealing with what are familiarly known as the "drins" has, so far as I can establish, been relegated to limbo. However, we
698
have tried in the report that is before your Lordships to deal with the current draft directive.
While I assume that we are all anxious to secure a satisfactory scheme for pollution control, there should be no dodging the fact that it can be laborious, expensive and a burden on industry and on the water authorities to monitor a long list of substances unless there is a genuine, proven need. So it is worth checking to see how satisfactory is the present system of selecting relevant toxic substances and allotting their place in the list of priorities.
Those who have read our report—in particular, paragraph 21 and those paragraphs which follow—will have gathered that the committee was not happy about at least some of the present arrangements. Frankly, we were shocked by the evidence of the two United Kingdom members of the EC Advisory Committee on Toxicology and Ecotoxicology. Dr. John Brady and Professor Conning gave evidence which can be found on pages 56 and 57 of the report, and I am sure that their serious allegations of inadequacy in the organisation of the scientific advisory service will have been noted in Brussels. After so many years, we should certainly have devised something better. That situation is unsatisfactory in itself, and it appears to waste the time and energy of the experts called in to advise. The Minister may be able to pick up this point and give the House some indication of whether any other representations have been made through official channels in respect of the evidence that was submitted to the committee.
The Commission does not rely exclusively on the Advisory Committee on Toxicology and Ecotoxicology or on the work of its own in-house staff. It also contracts some of the work on scientific evaluation to suitable outside contractors. That pattern has been followed in relation to dangerous substances in the aquatic environment. Following the original list of 1,500 substances, consultants were engaged to reduce the list to more manageable proportions. In 1980, SRI International, the consultants selected, submitted to the Commission a list based on an algorithmic method for determining priorities. I have a copy of their report, which indicates to the lay reader a conscientious effort to achieve their goal. However, the consultants were careful in their conclusions not to claim more for their results than they thought was justified. They say:
"Our own assessment of the success of this ranking effort is that it provides useful insights into the relative importance of discharges limitations for the ranked compounds".
They conclude:
"On the other hand, our results are based in large part on fragmentary data and highly simplified models of environmental behaviour. We recommend that further effort be devoted both to improving the quality of the data input to the current algorithm and to testing alternative structures and parameter values for the ranking algorithm";
that is to say, the algorithm used for ranking the substances in order of priority. Again, it will be interesting to know whether the Government have done anything to encourage adequate research and study of the still extremely long list of substances potentially subject to regulation. We are justified in asking what further progress has been made in defining and improving the exercise.

699
In paragraph 21, the committee emphasised that it was not satisfied with the degree of openness in making known the way in which scientific conclusions are reached. Nor were we content with the arbitrary way, as it seemed to us, in which the application factors were applied. We refer to this point in paragraph 24. In the SRI International report which I have just mentioned, I was struck not only by the consultants' reservations about the adequacy of the basis of their calculations but also by the way in which they indicated some of the assumptions on which their conclusions rested. For example, they said quite categorically that,
"the algorithm does not model the geographic distribution of the pollutants,"
and therefore they could not take particular geographic conditions into account. They said also that they,
"discount measured ambient concentrations because of uncertainties on method, time, place and relevance of measurement",
but suggest that they should be used when calculated concentrations are suspect, and so on.
The point I am endeavouring to make is that in this exercise, which is extremely important, we are still working in an area in which there is a great deal of scientific work and monitoring to be done if we are not to embark on certain very expensive processes which may or may not be fully justified. In particular, I am concerned about one point in the SRI report—and I use its words, not mine. The report states:
"We de-emphasise indirect discharges such as agricultural runoff".
In certain areas in the United Kingdom—in particular, I suppose, East Anglia—agricultural run-off is one of the greatest problems in water pollution. One cannot just dismiss it by saying, as the report does, that they have been able to de-emphasise or discount it. Can the Minister say anything further about that?
This particular matter is one of the aspects which is at the heart of the difficulty in reconciling the discrepancies between the environmental quality objective method and the limit value method. As we indicate quite clearly in our report, and as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, indicated, one cannot deal with diffuse sources of water pollution by limit values. Therefore, if one is to have an adequate totality of control the environmental quality method must be employed. This involves the comprehensive monitoring of water courses and estuaries, not just checking at the point of industrial discharge.
One cannot help asking: are all our European partners willing and able to undertake this type of monitoring? As far as I know some do, in certain circumstances at least, and others, on the whole, do not. I believe I am correct in saying that the United Kingdom is the only member state which has a completely comprehensive monitoring system based on the environmental quality method.
If one is to insist, as I think we must where diffuse points are concerned, that a comprehensive monitoring system is established, various other questions arise. For example, to what extent is any member state under an obligation to monitor,
700
sometimes by very expensive sophisticated methods, substances which are not manufactured or formulated in their territories? In its most important submission the Institute for European Environmental Policy suggested that there should be one system for all member states. But in those circumstances I suppose they would admit certain derogations.
I refer to a particularly interesting report which came out in March of this year from our own Water Research Centre on Priorities for Study and Action on the List I Substances, of which the directive we are discussing today includes four from the priority list. The WRC report points out that 20 of the compounds in the list of 129 are produced at one plant only within the entire European Community and that over half the compounds in that list are not produced in the United Kingdom at all. The major producer, covering by far the largest number of the potentially relevant chemical compounds, is, of course, the Federal Republic of Germany. One must ask how far other member states and the Commission itself are taking considerations of this kind on board. I believe they are very relevant to the development of the administration of the draft directives which will no doubt follow the one before us, which is one of the daughter directives of the main directive on dangerous substances in the acquatic environment.
There are many other comments that one could make on this subject. I have gone into detail on the aspects I have touched upon this afternoon simply to indicate that, while we did not go into such detail in our own report, these matters are very relevant to the attitude which those who represent Her Majesty's Government in the discussions and negotiations in Brussels will have to adopt.
I conclude by saying that I believe the report is a very important advance, not only in the administration of our own pollution control arrangements in this country but also, I hope, in our relationship with our colleagues. This has been a very long-running story, as some of us are aware, and I am happy that we break new ground in the report. I hope that further progress, based on this revision of what has appeared to some of our colleagues to be our rather intransigent attitude, will help progress in general in the Community.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, speak with great knowledge and authority in these matters. I cannot claim any similar expertise, but as a member of the sub-committee I wish to pay particular tribute to our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. Again and again when some of us felt that we might sink below the surface in a sea of technicalities he kept our deliberations sequent and intelligible. He guided our work with great skill, and we are very much indebted to him.
As a consequence I hope our report is clear. I should like to emphasise only one or two points in it. First, I support the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, in what they said about the need for the Commission to make more sensible use of its Scientific Advisory Committee on the toxicity and

701
the ecotoxicity of chemical compounds, referred to in paragraph 23 of our report. This was brought out very emphatically in the evidence given to us by Dr. John Brady. It seems to me important—indeed, fundamental—that this distinguished committee should be used more sensibly.
My second point is to emphasise the particular dangers in the persistence of certain substances mentioned in paragraph 28. As the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, pointed out, we cited the example of DDT which, although it has not been manufactured or used in the United Kingdom for some time, can still be detected. Residues still exist. This shows how careful we must be in using these persistent substances.
In the past we have, I think, been a little reckless. I remember being somewhat shocked to find that after we had stopped using DDT in the United Kingdom we were still sending it out under our aid programme for use in Africa. I think we should be as careful with the environment of the third world as we are with our own. Though it was not within the terms of reference of our sub-committee, we are discussing the question of persistent and dangerous substances reaching the aquatic environment and therefore I propose to mention a closely related problem, which is that of high nitrate levels in our water supplies.
I should like to ask the Minister, to whom I have given notice that I would raise this point, whether it is correct that the Thames and Anglia water authorities are having difficulty in keeping below the danger level set for nitrates by the European Community, and whether there is substance in the view that nitrates now in our water may in part have been spread on the land many years ago. I should also like to know whether the Government think that there are serious risks to the health of adults and babies from nitrate in water and what steps they are proposing to take to avert such risks.
I should like to join in stressing our conclusions that a control system should be adapted to each particular substance, that there should be comprehensive monitoring and also that there should be control of diffuse sources such as the run-off of pesticides from farms, which in my view is a particularly important point. This problem of preventing dangerous substances getting into lakes and rivers is of course not confined to us or to Europe. I remember that when I was in Canada I learnt that the Ottawa river by my window was full of tritium, and it was considered unsafe to eat fish taken from Lake Ontario because they were full of dioxin and polychlorinated biphenyls. The problem is international but it is especially important for us, so I hope that those concerned, particularly those in the Commission, will take our report seriously and adopt the measures we have proposed.
6.12 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I should like to join with previous speakers in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, on his very able chairmanship of the sub-committee and on his excellent introduction to the report this evening, which I think leaves nothing further to be clarified. It was fascinating to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, of his own personal recollection of events surrounding the beginning of
702
this saga. None of your Lordships will have been deceived by the noble Baroness, Lady White, who has a deep expertise, in calling herself a lay member as a preface to an extremely thoughtful and very well-researched speech.
What I shall do is draw attention to a matter that is lightly touched on in the report yet is one that I regard as fundamental to the political issue and therefore central to the political resolution of the friction between the United Kingdom, the European Commission and other member states. This is a subject which was raised in evidence before the Select Committee by the Chemical Industries Association, and will be found on page 13 of the report. The CIA interpreted remarks in the explanatory memorandum to the draft directive as evidence that those Commission officials who prepared the text believed that all discharges of black list or List 1 substances as far as possible should be eliminated. I feel that perhaps this is an over-sensitive interpretation of the actual words of the explanatory memorandum; nonetheless I agree that such beliefs are genuinely held by at least some of the personnel in the Commission, and such beliefs are undoubtedly shared by many water authorities in member states.
This attitude reflects the experience in our fellow member nations of the Community—those nations which share international rivers and/or have coasts washed by the enclosed waters of the Mediterranean or the Waddensee or the Baltic. Such an extremely strong position is justified, in the eyes of the water authorities concerned, by the defined nature of black-list substances which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has already briefly mentioned. Black-list substances are defined as being poisonous, as being persistent—that is to say, not being naturally degradable in the environment—and by being biocumulative, which means that they are concentrated in the food chain. Low initial concentrations in the environment taken into prey organisms are ultimately concentrated and can become lethal in the tissues of top predators such as predatory fish or raptorial birds, which have given us a number of examples. There is also the characteristic of black-list substances that they are carcinogenic in or through the aquatic environment.
I think that every one of us must recognise that any substance that meets all these criteria is genuinely an extremely unpleasant material. Any rational person would want to take every possible step to guard society and the environment from the effects of such a chemical, if necessary including as near possible total prohibition of voluntary discharges to the surface waters. But such gut feelings (if your Lordships will excuse my language) have been developed within the Community and the member states into a more sophisticated philosophy. This finds its most refined expression in the Federal Republic of Germany's environmental protection policy as summed up in the German word Vorsorgeprinzip, which literally translated means the "precautionary principle"; but by the German authorities this is generally translated as the "anticipation principle".
A convenient summary of the anticipation principle can be found in the 1980 report of the Federal Republic of Germany's Council of Environmental Advisers, commonly abbreviated by its German

703
initials RSU, which was reporting on the environmental problems of the North Sea. I think it is worth reading these words to your Lordships, because they have a tremendous impact:
"The anticipation principle tries to prevent the emergence of environmental risks and deterioration by means of emission-oriented measures. This means to avoid the input of such substances, whose harmful effects are to be feared, but cannot be proven; … the anticipation principle would find its clearest expression in the obligation for all (potential) polluters to apply the best available technology, even when a concrete probability of danger or damage cannot be proven. Binding emission standard would have to be set for all polluters and the objection that a concrete danger is not to be discerned would be inadmissible.
"in certain respects the anticipation principle may be interpreted even more stringently: any disturbance of the metabolic equilibrium, the energy cycle, or the structure of species of an ecosystem would be prohibited, especially the input of anthropogenic substances which are persistent, difficult to degrade, or accumulate in organisms. Whether a substance is toxic, would be disregarded".
My experience on Sub-Committee G, on our excursions to Brussels, and at one time when I served as chairman of the jury of the International Water Tribunal, convinces me that such opinions expressed in those terms are held rather widely in member states by people charged with the duty of devising and enforcing measures to protect the aquatic environment. I emphasise to your Lordships that such sentiments have the imprimatur of the RSU, which is a highly respected and influential body with status equivalent to our own Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
Against this background, when I go to Europe on such cases I cannot avoid a certain frisson of embarrassment or transferred guilt when I hear oft-repeated references to the beneficial effects of the United Kingdom's "short, fast rivers" and "turbulent and tidal seas", or perhaps more guardedly, "the incentives to industry to site plants on the coast where the effect of discharges can be reduced by turbulence and dilution"; or, more cryptically still, reference to the "rational use of natural resources". I apologise for the fact that I find all those remarks in the evidence of the Department of the Environment, on page 78 of our report.
As your Lordships will realise, the anticipation principle—and here perhaps I ought to apologise to my colleagues overseas, especially in the Federal Republic and the Netherlands—is not good science. It is atrocious science. First of all, organic compounds are not eternally persistent. Some, such as DDT and its derivatives, as we have already heard mentioned this evening, are very slow to break down, but given time they will do so ultimately to harmless components. There may be a difference with inorganic components. Some metals are more stable as salts or oxides than in the pure, elemental state, and toxicity is related to the presence of the metal ion. But to devise controls based on harmful effects that are feared but cannot be proven is not science but a challenge to science to investigate and to establish the truth.
Despite those criticisms, I think that Her Majesty's Government and the industrialists of the United Kingdom must realise that it is no longer acceptable to the wider society of the European Community simply to ensure that preventable emissions of black list substances are adequately mixed with the receiving
704
waters—washed away from British soils by our short rivers and rapidly stirred into our turbulent tides. As the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said just now, the sea is the ultimate repository of poisons which are not degradable, and so substances which are genuinely persistent, toxic and bioaccumulative will remain in our European waters, will accumulate in our European top predators, and, if the worst fears are realised, will ultimately pollute and degrade what is our European environment.
The right response must be to counter that non-science with good science. The noble Baroness, Lady White, has already referred to the work of the Water Research Centre on the black list substances, listing them against production arisings and toxicity. But more investment is needed now in a strong programme of ecotoxicological research. Money spent in that way is money well invested. It will be amply repaid by future economies through the obviation of unnecessary pollution control measures which are imposed through inadequate knowledge and excessive caution.
We need to know more about the environmental behaviour of potential black list substances—whether the number is 129 or 50,000. It may be a useful guide to predict their behaviour from chemical formulation, but in practice in the real world we need to answer such questions as: what is the environmental half-life of a given substance; what are the bioaccumulation routes, if any; what exactly is the toxicity of a substance to an appropriate range of organisms and not simply to a trout in a tank? We need to acquire those data, and we also need to refine the methods of transforming such data to quality standards and ultimately to appropriate emission limits. I believe that Her Majesty's Government and the chemical industry both have strong incentives to promote such research. I call on both parties to intensify present programmes and to inject new funds into joint projects.
In general, armed with the results of such research, as the Select Committee has pointed out, the EQO approach must be the only effective way to ensure that an environment is adequately protected. But in the end I believe we must accept that substances which are proven and genuinely deserving of being included on the black list for their toxicity, persistence and bioaccumulation must be differently treated. Our environment extends beyond our coasts and beyond the seas of our EEZ, if we declare one. Our responsibility extends beyond now to future generations. It is very laborious, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, has emphasised, and it is expensive to monitor sufficiently widely to detect dangerous accumulations of poisonous substances. If they are black list substances, by the time they reach such concentrations it is too late to respond. It is safer and more economic to take every possible step to prevent discharges, if necessary, following the best technical means to eliminate them as far as possible.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, it is as a layman that I took part in the deliberations of the committee, and so it would be inappropriate for me to say anything scientific, especially in view of the high quality of the

705
speakers who have preceded me. I should like to say a word of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his team. They have concentrated our minds very well on a most important subject.
There is perhaps a note of indictment in the report. It is that the Commission is not grasping the issue as fundamentally and as realistically as it should, and is treating it not so much as a wind of change that is needed but rather as a sweet zephyr which one of these days might result in a hurricane of change. It is most important that we should concentrate our minds on the possibilities; unless they are properly tackled they will ultimately have such an effect.
Let me draw the Minister's attention to my layman's approach to the report. The nub seems to be in paragraph 29, which states:
"The 129 substances vary in their toxicity, persistence and extent of bioaccumulation. Further, the predominant sources from which they are discharged to the … environment differ for each substance.".
That means that they all need to be treated in their own right and differently; and that brings us to the fact that we must have not only an environmental quality objective but also a limit value running in conjunction with each other.
Finally, I should like to remind your Lordships of the ultimate responsibility for these highly toxic and dangerous substances which are now finding their way into the sea, as has been stated. That must be monitored most carefully for the future of the world and for the sake of us all. That is all that I have to offer after so much has been said in your Lordships' House.
6.27 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I happily associate myself with the laymen on the committee. The standard of debate tonight has been extremely high, and I hope that the Minister will be able to take a lot of new ideas back. First of all, may I join in the remarks about the noble Lord, Lord Ashby? It is very sad indeed that he is not here with us this evening. I am sure that we all send him our good wishes and hope that he will be back with us soon.
I should like to express special thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. Not only has he been an absolutely splendid chairman: his clear and precise explanation tonight was very helpful indeed and a lesson to all of us on how to present a report. The previous speakers have covered practically all the points that I intended to mention, and your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I have spent the past 10 minutes crossing out most of what I had to say. But I think that a few points should be emphasised.
I first remind your Lordships, if noble Lords need reminding, of the case for pollution control which is summed up in the tenth report of the Royal Commission, which has already been quoted a little tonight. I should like to read the final paragraph because I think it sums up our attitudes. It is paragraph 7.109, and it says:
"Control of environmental pollution is not an optional extra; it is a fundamental component of national, economic and social policy, and has many international implications. Pollution control policy, and environmental policy generally, should be accorded the priority and resources adequate for their integration in the national decision-making process, so that their potential benefits can be realised to the full and at least cost.".
706
That is, I believe, the creed by which we try to live, and certainly in Sub-Committee G it is, I think, constantly before us.
The Government response to that particular report seemed to accept the findings, and I hope that this is the Government's line. I must say that, so far, I can find little hard evidence of a changed attitude since the emergence of the report. The long discussion over the choice between environmental quality objectives or limit values simply serves to show that what is needed is a flexible approach. This is one of the most important recommendations that the report puts before your Lordships. The approach must be tailored to the nature of the substance and the local conditions. The committee were unanimous in this, and they have remained unanimous this evening. Clearly there are circumstances in which both approaches are necessary.
There is a need, too, to devise and maintain an effective monitoring system. This is something that both my noble friend Lady White and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, have touched upon. They have also mentioned the cost. I am not clear how the monitoring system is being financed, whether it could be financed better or whether the Minister has any views to offer on where finance might be forthcoming so that we can have an overall standard monitoring system that will ensure that our objectives are kept. Without that it does not matter how much we do along the way. Unless we can measure as we go along that we are achieving our objectives, we are wasting our time. I should therefore like to hear from the Minister whether or not the Government have strong views on whether there might be central finance forthcoming either from our own Government or from the EC for a monitoring system.
There may be different views on the legitimacy or the moral standing of an environmental policy coming from the Treaty of Rome. But since 1972 the existence of such a policy has been accepted, however grudgingly, by all member states. Although reasons for acceptance may vary and none may be the same as ours, those of us who are concerned for the protection of the environment must take this or any other opportunity that presents itself to further the cause of pollution control. I shall quote once more, and for the last time, from the RCEP tenth report. Recommendation 7.19—it is actually a conclusion rather than a recommendation—says:
"We believe that the United Kingdom should be less on the defensive and should play a more positive role in promoting environmental matters in the European Community".
That is something that we should like to see.
As for the subject of the report before us tonight, we can argue, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has said, about what should or should not be on the list. We can seek to clarify the text of the draft directive. But if we are sincere in our aims we can interpret, amend and persuade and, at the same time, pursue our own objectives while doing all that. I understand that discussions on the responses to the draft directive are to start next Thursday; that is, 28th November. It would be to our credit if we could make a positive response at those discussions. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has indicated, that response has probably already been drafted, it would be

707
encouraging to hear from the Minister that it is a positive document and to be assured by him that all the valuable comments this evening will be reflected in that document.
I support the findings of the committee. I am sorry indeed that it has been a solely committee exercise tonight, speaking in support of it. But that only serves to show how dedicated all of us are to what we said.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, two days ago the House approved the annual Motion to set up our Select Committee on the European Community. Since this is the first EC debate since then, I should like to start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, her confrères and her consoeurs, on the able way in which they have carried out their roles and the detailed studies that they have put in hand. I would also, on behalf of this Front Bench, like to welcome my noble friends Lord Middleton and Lord Rodney, the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm and the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, to the committee and to wish them well in their future work. I should also draw attention to today's Motion and to the replacing of the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. We also welcome her to the ranks of the committee as a full, rather than, as I understand was the case previously, a co-opted member.
This debate originated in a long discussion in Sub-Committee G, of which I was once privileged to be a co-opted member, which has taken place over a period of nearly 10 years on the subject of the purity of water, especially, but far from exclusively, drinking water. In 1976, the framework directive on the discharge of dangerous substances to water was adopted. Since then, several man-decades, if not man-centuries, across the Community must have been spent in negotiating directives on only three specific substances; namely, as we have heard today, mercury, cadmium and lindane.
Earlier this year, the Commission came up with a proposal for a general framework directive to back up the 1976 original and make it speedier to operate. As such, the Government, like the Select Committee, welcome this step which should save a considerable amount of time and effort, to say nothing of expense in future negotiations.
If I may return briefly to Tuesday's annual Motion, it will be readily seen that the Select Committee's duties are not confined to obtaining all necessary information about Community proposals, but—and this is the important bit:
"to make reports on those, which in the opinion of the Committee, raise important questions of policy or principle, and on other questions to which the Committee consider that the special attention of the House should be drawn".
From what I have said already, it is quite clear that this directive is a proper subject for debate in your Lordships' House, because it does raise questions of policy and principle, and the House will therefore be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for introducing this very wide-ranging debate this afternoon.
708
Although it is perhaps a dangerous thing to do, I should like to start by disagreeing with the noble Lord. This subject is far from esoteric. I would remind him that still waters, whether polluted or not, run deep. The House will realise that it would have been unusual for the United Kingdom and indeed any member state to welcome a proposal in its entirety, and this was no exception. The weakness of the original text was, we felt, that it did not take sufficiently into account the nature of the substances which in future we shall be considering for List 1 status. The draft was based on previous daughter directives and in particular that on cadmium. But whereas discharges of cadmium and mercury arise primarily from industrial point sources, the input to the aquatic environment of many candidate List 1 substances, particularly pesticides and fungicides, stems mainly from diffuse sources.
We have therefore urged our partners to agree to adapt the proposal so that it copes more effectively with diffuse sources, and have succeeded in securing significant changes to the text which will be of benefit to the environment. In particular, the current wording now makes clear that all member states, including those applying limit values, are required to carry out monitoring of the environment affected by discharges from whatever source and to submit the results to the Commission. We are pleased that there seems to be a large measure of agreement on the revised articles. We hope this will be confirmed at the Environment Council on 28th November.
This, then, is the current state of the proposal on which the Select Committee has made its report. The text has changed somewhat. But it is still based on the so-called dual approach, that is, the choice for member states to apply either limit values or quality objectives. It is on this aspect of the proposal that the committee has concentrated.
Much has been said today about quality objectives. I hope that your Lordships will forgive my adding to it. The policy of applying environmental quality objectives often gets a bad press abroad and sometimes at home too. I think it important that we all understand exactly what we are talking about. Everybody knows that the United Kingdom applies quality objectives. It is not always appreciated how we apply those objectives, and indeed what they mean.
It is a basic principle of United Kingdom policy on water pollution that the control of effluent should be related to the desired quality of the receiving environment. Thus we decide for a particular stretch of water the objective that we wish to achieve—that it be suitable for bathing, for the protection of salmonid fish or whatever. The quality standard—that is, the concentration of particular substances that must not be exceeded if this objective is to be met—is then determined and the sources discharging those substances controlled to ensure that the quality standards are not exceeded. In the case of point sources, the effluent will be controlled by emission standards; in the case of diffuse sources, some other means of control—for example, restrictions on use—will need to be considered.
I trust that my last few sentences will not be regarded as teaching my grandmother to suck eggs. I am concerned that in paragraph 29 of the report the committee seems to suggest that quality objectives and

709
standards are inappropriate to the control of point sources. The truth of the matter as I see it is that the use of quality standards is the only means of ensuring that the environment is adequately protected from discharges from point sources. Nor do the Government believe (as is sometimes thought) that emission standards may be relaxed simply because the quality standard is easily met. It is firm Government policy, backed up by our general obligations under the Water Act 1973 to maintain and improve water quality, that the United Kingdom does not permit standards of effluent control to be lowered in this way.
What the policy on environmental quality objectives means is that scarce resources can be most efficiently used for the protection of the environment. Dischargers are not required to install sophisticated and expensive pollution control equipment where this is unnecessary. At the same time, there is an incentive to the discharger to site his factory or plant where the effect on the environment will be least. The securing of the environmental quality objective option in the framework directive of 1976 is sometimes seen as a British victory: I see it as a victory for the environment.
Other member states have chosen to apply a system of limit values. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook calls this a political decision. I am not so sure. I know that international logic is very hard to find. The system of limit values means that discharges from point sources have to compy with emission standards which must be set within maxima or limit values set by the Community on an industry basis taking into account the best technology available to that industry. Thus an industrial plant on the Atlantic coast of France would have to comply with the same emission standards as a similar plant discharging into the head waters of the Rhine. This is a simple system which can in certain circumstances be useful. For example, to apply a single emission standard on a long international river which receives many industrial discharges may be a sensible and effective first step towards the control of pollution. But there is no guarantee that this will be the case, and in the longer term it is unlikely to be an efficient system. Either it will not protect the environment because there are simply too many discharges, or it will lead to unnecessary expense on effluent control in some places and too little in others. And limit values cannot of course be applied to diffuse sources.
Moreover, I cannot accept the justification for limit values that some member states put forward: that is, that they are a means of eliminating distortion of competition. Other member states may be tired of hearing the United Kingdom talk about the sunshine in Italy, but the argument remains a valid one. Different member states enjoy different natural advantages. Italy has its sunshine; Germany is situated at the centre of the European market. We have a long coastline and a large number of short, fast-flowing rivers. Again I tell my noble friend Lord Cranbrook that this is what my department's evidence was intended to convey. I am sorry that this was not made clear to him at the time.
To attempt to harmonise the pollution control costs of industry would be a nonsense. It would create, rather than eliminate, distortion of competition. The
710
function of an efficient, Common Market is to see that the right things are done in the right places for the right reasons.
The choice of the United Kingdom to apply quality objectives and other states to apply limit values has led to a polarisation of views within the Community. I believe that it is one that is unfortunate and sometimes exaggerated. For example, as I have already pointed out we in this country do not pursue our application of quality standards to the logical extreme and other member states take more account of the receiving environment than a rigid adherence to limit values would suggest. There is nevertheless a basic difference of approach which has concerned the Select Committee, and my noble friend Lord Nugent referred to the fact that it has recommended that the United Kingdom should take the initiative in proposing a single Community approach to the discharge of List I substances. This is, as the noble Lord has said, such a radical change of approach that I hope that I have understood it properly.
As I understand it, the committee has suggested that for substances confirmed as List I, first, all member states should apply the same system of control: and, secondly, that this should be either limit values or quality objectives or both. The choice would depend largely on the nature of the discharge of the substance concerned. For substances for which there were few diffuse sources, limit values might be sufficient, but should be backed up by environmental monitoring—which would in fact amount to a form of quality standard application.
It seems to me that the committee have developed their recommendation on the basis of two principles: First, that the quality of the environment is paramount—thus monitoring of the environment, with or without the application of a quantitative standard, is essential; I agree. The proposal has been modified to reflect this. Second, that there are some substances which are so dangerous that, however low the concentration in the receiving water might be, we should limit discharges as much as we possibly can. Again, I agree. As an example of the latter, I would cite the example of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls, which we accept should not be allowed to enter the aquatic environment at all and we have severely restricted their use, but what I think we must pause to consider is whether the idea of a very restrictive approach for a particularly nasty group of substances accords with the way in which substances are classified in the Annex of the 1976 framework directive. This attempts to divide a vast range of substances into two lists. This serves a purpose, but the division is somewhat arbitrary. The substances do not divide neatly into two groups but range across a very wide spectrum. PCBs and PCTs are at one end, but because the directive only allows of two categories, these are bunched together with substances which, though requiring strict control, are naturally occurring elements and not dangerous in low concentrations. I would have doubts about the justification for applying too restrictive an approach to these substances, and to many others that we may be urged to accept as List I substances. I note that the committee, in another context, make the point that unduly large safety factors impose unnecessary burdens on industry.

711
In this connection I would like to refer also to the committee's recommendation that,
"Where List I substances are particularly persistent in the environment or accumulate in organisms and food chains to a high degree, 'best technical means available',"
should be used in new plant however low the concentration of the substances in the receiving water. The problem is again one of criteria. For certain List I substances, it might be necessary to prevent discharges altogether. The difficulty lies in agreeing with other member states, whose objectives in controling the discharge of dangerous substances may not always be the same as our own, where one should draw the line between those substances, which ones industry should not be allowed to discharge, which ones should be severely controlled on a precautionary basis, and for which ones the quality standard approach is entirely adequate, and therefore most efficient.
The House will realise that the Government have already given serious thought to the committee's recommendations. We shall examine them further. No one enjoys our present position of isolation on the use of quality objectives—least of all my colleagues and officials in the Department of the Environment who have the task of defending United Kingdom practice in Brussels. We therefore look carefully at all proposals that might reconcile the differences between ourselves and other member states. However, the implications—environmental as well as economic—of an approach that involved the use of limit values could be far-reaching. We should need to think very carefully before making any change in our present approach, which we have had to work hard over the years to safeguard and is firmly embodied in the present proposal.
I have already touched on the problem of selection of substances for inclusion in List I. This is of course a matter that the committee also considered. I should like to offer my wholehearted support to their recommendation that the European Commission should review its procedures for the preparation of draft directives, and should reveal its ideas and evidence to a wider scientific community.
I should like to associate myself with all noble Lords who have referred to the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Ashby. Had he been present, no doubt he would have repeated his clarion call on this matter. We too find it most unsatisfactory that the Commission should decide which candidate substances should be selected for examination, and that its consultation, both with national experts and its own expert committees, should be at best superficial. The United Kingdom then finds itself in the unenviable position of disputing the inclusion of a particular substance when a lot of work has been put into preparing a formal proposal. I can promise the noble Baroness, Lady White, that we shall continue to press the Commission to improve its procedures.
The prime example of this has been the case of chloroform and carbon tetrachloride. The evidence given to the Select Committee suggests that consultation between the Commission and its own experts was carried out in a very cursory fashion. Consultation with member states was no better. We
712
wrote twice to the Commission explaining why we did not believe inclusion of the two substances in List I was justified. We received no reply.
The situation is not helped by the fact that the grounds for inclusion of chloroform and carbon tetrachloride have become somewhat confused. First of all, the Commission said the two substances did not meet the normal criteria of toxicity, persistence and bioaccumulation. They argued that the substances should be included in List I on the grounds of their relationship with cancer. Other member states also argued on this basis. But, as the committee's report points out, the authors of the ecotoxicological report on the substances considered them to be toxic and persistent and the Commission are now arguing that they ought to be included on the basis of these criteria.
We have looked carefully at the evidence. Carbon tetrachloride is persistent in the atmosphere. But neither chloroform nor carbon tetrachloride accumulates in living tissue, and they are toxic only in concentrations much higher than one would find in the aquatic environment; existing levels of the two substances in United Kingdom waters and, as far as we are aware, in other Community waters, are generally well below the quality standard proposed by the Commission. Then there is the question of their possible carcinogenicity. We accept that exposure to very high doses of the two substances can cause cancer in some rodents. But from the available evidence neither of the substances appears to be genotoxic; that is, the cancer is not caused by a direct effect of the chemical on the genetic material. The implication is that carcinogenic effects will only be produced if extremely high doses are given; low repeated doses could not—I repeat, could not—produce carcinogenic effects. My department has been advised that the prevailing levels of concentration of the two substances in the surface waters of the Community are many orders of magnitude below those that have been proven to cause, or would be expected to cause, hazard to human health or to aquatic organisms. Thus we do not believe that chloroform and carbon tetrachloride meet the criteria necessary for their inclusion in List I.
However, noble Lords might ask, if the proposed quality standard causes us no difficulty, could we not demonstrate political goodwill in Brussels by accepting it? It is true that we should have few problems in meeting the quality standards proposed by the Commission. The inclusion of such substances in List I does, however, raise an important issue of principle; that is, whether arbitrary relaxation of the criteria set out in the framework directive should be permitted. In our view, this would be most unfortunate; time and effort would be wasted on negotiation and application of limit values and quality standards for substances for which this was unnecessary and the water authorities in particular would have to accept a considerably increased burden of monitoring and control. Progress would be held up on those substances which do merit List I treatment. Moreover, we consider that it would be irresponsible of the Community to create concern among the public that a substance is particularly dangerous when that is not in fact the case.
The fact that the United Kingdom does not accept that carbon tetrachloride and chloroform should be

713
included in List I does not mean that we intend to do nothing about the two substances. We shall in due course treat them as List II. We are well ahead in setting national quality standards for many List II substances. But we give priority to those List II substances which we think may be causing problems. I should like to emphasise that neither chloroform nor carbon tetrachloride is causing pollution in our water environment.
At this point, I should like to reply to the points on the importance of monitoring made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and others. The responsibility for environmental monitoring rests with the water authorities, which spend £20 million a year on exactly this. We believe that effective monitoring of the environment is absolutely essential to all pollution control activities, and I am pleased to say that there is evidence that the performance of the water authorities is improving as List I substances and List II substances are defined and quality standards applied.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked me about a substance that is well outside the subject of today's debate. However, tempted though I am to shelter behind a hackneyed ministerial phrase, the noble Lord gave me notice that he intended to raise the subject of nitrates, which it is true can take many years to reach the ground water. I should tell the noble Lord that neither the Thames nor the Anglian Water Authorities have any trouble in keeping below safe health levels. It follows, as our scientific advice shows, that there is no significant risk to human health.
The noble Lord was not alone, The noble Baroness, Lady White, has bounced me on several subjects which again are not strictly relevant to today's debate. However, I shall be drawn on one of them. Although I believe that we are absolutely right to blow our own trumpet when we have something to sound off about, 1 am not sure that we can pride ourselves on being either better or worse monitors than any other countries in the EC.
Despite our resistance to the inclusion of chloroform and carbon tetrachloride, our commitment to the principle of the current proposal is not weakened. It marks an important milestone in the control of List I substances and would be worth adopting at the Environment Council on 28th November even if the annexes were for the time being left blank. In fact, we hope very much that it will be possible to agree the inclusion of both DDT and PCP. We have not the slightest doubt that both these substances fulfil the criteria set out in the framework directive.
We shall, however, continue to press for scientifically-based quality standards for them. I note that the committee's report comments that as PCP is not manufactured in the United Kingdom, neither the proposed quality standards nor the limit values would be difficult to achieve. There are two points here. First, it does not follow that because we do not manufacture PCP we can necessarily meet the quality standard. PCP is quite widely used and there are both point and diffuse sources—hence the importance of not relying solely on limit values. Secondly, we would not wish to accept the implication that because a proposed quality standard could be met, we should accept it. Quality standards should not be set on the basis of existing
714
levels; they must follow from a scientific determination of levels needed to protect the environment. Science is all too frequently forgotten in some of the debates that take place in Brussels, but we continue to do our best to see that it is not thrown out of the window altogether. We therefore welcome the support of your Lordships, many of whom have acknowledged expertise in this field. I have no hesitation in agreeing here with the noble Baroness, Lady White.
I am hopeful that at the Environment Council next week my honourable friend Mr. Waldegrave and his colleagues will be able to agree the present proposal with two substances in the annex. Looking to the future we hope to work with the other member states in the Community to include further substances in the annex to the present proposal. We think it ought, for example, to be possible to make fairly quick progress on the next two substances that we believe the Commission have it in mind to propose—hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiëne.
We have had a good debate today on a most interesting topic. The Select Committee have produced a report that I think we have all found thought-provoking. The House is grateful to the Committee for it and the Government, for their part, have noted the Committee's suggestions, will consider them carefully and will, of course, act upon them.
7 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, it may interest your Lordships to know that before putting into the report our recommendation that it should be debated, we ourselves had considerable discussion on the ground that this was a technical subject, and that perhaps it was of interest to rather few people, although we had no doubt as to the importance of the matters under discussion. But in the end we agreed that it was appropriate for debate, and I can only say that the debate which has taken place today seems fully to have warranted that conclusion including, if I may say so, the reply of the Minister.
May I refer briefly, and not by way of reply, to one or two things which the Minister has told us. First, it must be a great satisfaction to members of the committee as well as to him that there have been changes in order to bring about a closer measure of control of diffuse sources, which was so much emphasised in the Third Action Programme of the Community, approved not so long ago, and for which the absence of sufficient provision in the directive caused us considerable concern. Therefore, we shall look forward to seeing what has been achieved there; and that must be a great step forward.
So far as the quality objectives debate is concerned, of course we received the evidence of the department and considered it most carefully. We came to the conclusions of which your Lordships know. I would urge upon the Minister that, in considering our report further with his colleagues, he should give consideration not only to the present environment. to which a monitoring process alone relates, but also to the future environment 10 years, 20 years, 100 years hence in the case of these particularly nasty substances which, by definition, are persistent and accumulate. I was delighted to hear that if all our proposals—indeed

715
I think the main proposals we make—did not meet with immediate favour from the Government, at least they will receive further careful consideration, and I look forward to the result of that.
May I refer, briefly at this hour, to the support which this debate has had from your Lordships. First, there was the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, who after all, in so far as water is concerned, I would regard as almost Father Thames. He knows more about water than I think almost any other Member of your Lordships' House. What he says in relation to water and pollution of water carries the most enormous weight, and his assistance on the committee was of infinite value.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, in her own specialty, has been in the environmental field for many years. Her experience and her great and wide knowledge of all matters relating to the environment have been of immense value to the committee, particularly in this study, and I was interested and glad that she emphasised, consequent upon the research she had made, the need for greater consideration of the choice of priority for the substances to be chosen, a matter to which the Minister himself referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, spoke particularly about the persistence, and the importance of the persistence, of the chemicals with which we are dealing. He strayed a little off the course, but was picked up by the Minister relating to nitrates. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, spoke with his enormous learning on the scientific aspects, and it was an enormous support to the committee to have his assistance as a scientist in the front of his discipline to help us in this matter. We were particularly grateful that he was able to do so in view of his engagements on the Local Government Bill, which took much of his time. What he was able to tell us from his great experience of the views and opinions held in Europe was particularly interesting, because they are highly relevant to what we ourselves should be doing.
I was grateful for Lord Rugby's emphasis primarily on the main principles we were putting forward. I would thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for the quotations from the Royal Commission's report and for her reference to the unanimity of the committee. I think it would be fair to say, and I think she would agree, that this was not a formal unanimity, that is to say that there was no dissent, but an extraordinary degree of unanimity of approach to the whole problem and to the conclusions we reached. It is highly significant that members of the committee of such high distinction should have reached unanimous conclusions in the form they did.
Therefore, all that remains is for me to thank your Lordships for your support in this debate, and for the interesting speeches which were made.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seven minutes past seven o'clock.